All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>
To: Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com>
Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] blocked task after exynos_drm_init
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:04:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <546B27B4.4040808@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <546B2508.8070409@samsung.com>

On 11/18/2014 11:52 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> On 2014년 11월 18일 19:42, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 11/06/2014 10:06 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On last next (next-20141104, next-20141105) booting locks after
>>> initializing Exynos DRM (Trats2 board):
>>>
>>> [    2.028283] [drm] Initialized drm 1.1.0 20060810
>>> [  240.505795] INFO: task swapper/0:1 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>> [  240.510825]       Not tainted 3.18.0-rc3-next-20141105 #794
>>> [  240.516418] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>> [  240.524173] swapper/0       D c052534c     0     1      0 0x00000000
>>> [  240.530527] [<c052534c>] (__schedule) from [<c0525b34>] (schedule_preempt_disabled+0x14/0x20)
>>> [  240.539030] [<c0525b34>] (schedule_preempt_disabled) from [<c0526d44>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x1c4/0x464)
>>> [  240.548320] [<c0526d44>] (mutex_lock_nested) from [<c02be908>] (__driver_attach+0x48/0x98)
>>> [  240.556562] [<c02be908>] (__driver_attach) from [<c02bcc00>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88)
>>> [  240.564717] [<c02bcc00>] (bus_for_each_dev) from [<c02bdce0>] (bus_add_driver+0xe4/0x200)
>>> [  240.572876] [<c02bdce0>] (bus_add_driver) from [<c02bef94>] (driver_register+0x78/0xf4)
>>> [  240.580864] [<c02bef94>] (driver_register) from [<c029e99c>] (exynos_drm_platform_probe+0x34/0x234)
>>> [  240.589890] [<c029e99c>] (exynos_drm_platform_probe) from [<c02bfcf0>] (platform_drv_probe+0x48/0xa4)
>>> [  240.599090] [<c02bfcf0>] (platform_drv_probe) from [<c02be680>] (driver_probe_device+0x13c/0x37c)
>>> [  240.607940] [<c02be680>] (driver_probe_device) from [<c02be954>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98)
>>> [  240.616360] [<c02be954>] (__driver_attach) from [<c02bcc00>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88)
>>> [  240.624517] [<c02bcc00>] (bus_for_each_dev) from [<c02bdce0>] (bus_add_driver+0xe4/0x200)
>>> [  240.632679] [<c02bdce0>] (bus_add_driver) from [<c02bef94>] (driver_register+0x78/0xf4)
>>> [  240.640667] [<c02bef94>] (driver_register) from [<c029e938>] (exynos_drm_init+0x70/0xa0)
>>> [  240.648739] [<c029e938>] (exynos_drm_init) from [<c00089b0>] (do_one_initcall+0xac/0x1f0)
>>> [  240.656914] [<c00089b0>] (do_one_initcall) from [<c074bd90>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x10c/0x1d8)
>>> [  240.665591] [<c074bd90>] (kernel_init_freeable) from [<c051eabc>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xec)
>>> [  240.673661] [<c051eabc>] (kernel_init) from [<c000f268>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c)
>>> [  240.681196] 3 locks held by swapper/0/1:
>>> [  240.685091]  #0:  (&dev->mutex){......}, at: [<c02be908>] __driver_attach+0x48/0x98
>>> [  240.692732]  #1:  (&dev->mutex){......}, at: [<c02be918>] __driver_attach+0x58/0x98
>>> [  240.700367]  #2:  (&dev->mutex){......}, at: [<c02be908>] __driver_attach+0x48/0x98
>>
>>
>> This is caused by patch moving platform devices to
>> /sys/devices/platform[1]. Since this patch registering platform
>> drivers/devices in probe of platform device causes deadlocks. I guess
>> now all driver registration should be moved to exynos_drm_init and it
>> seems better location for it IMHO.
> 
> Thanks. It might be a chance that we could separate sub drivers of
> Exynos drm into independent modules so that they can be called
> independently because if we move them to exynos_drm_init then the
> deferred probe wouldn't work correctly.

For full separation of sub-drivers component matching code should be
fixed first. Now it usually works because components are probed before
exynos_drm_match_add and this is because components are probed during
sub-driver registrations.

Regards
Andrzej

> 
> Thanks,
> Inki Dae
> 
>>
>> Regards
>> Andrzej
>>
>> [1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg56101.html
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Full dmesg and config attached.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: a.hajda@samsung.com (Andrzej Hajda)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [BUG] blocked task after exynos_drm_init
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:04:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <546B27B4.4040808@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <546B2508.8070409@samsung.com>

On 11/18/2014 11:52 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> On 2014? 11? 18? 19:42, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 11/06/2014 10:06 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On last next (next-20141104, next-20141105) booting locks after
>>> initializing Exynos DRM (Trats2 board):
>>>
>>> [    2.028283] [drm] Initialized drm 1.1.0 20060810
>>> [  240.505795] INFO: task swapper/0:1 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>> [  240.510825]       Not tainted 3.18.0-rc3-next-20141105 #794
>>> [  240.516418] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>> [  240.524173] swapper/0       D c052534c     0     1      0 0x00000000
>>> [  240.530527] [<c052534c>] (__schedule) from [<c0525b34>] (schedule_preempt_disabled+0x14/0x20)
>>> [  240.539030] [<c0525b34>] (schedule_preempt_disabled) from [<c0526d44>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x1c4/0x464)
>>> [  240.548320] [<c0526d44>] (mutex_lock_nested) from [<c02be908>] (__driver_attach+0x48/0x98)
>>> [  240.556562] [<c02be908>] (__driver_attach) from [<c02bcc00>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88)
>>> [  240.564717] [<c02bcc00>] (bus_for_each_dev) from [<c02bdce0>] (bus_add_driver+0xe4/0x200)
>>> [  240.572876] [<c02bdce0>] (bus_add_driver) from [<c02bef94>] (driver_register+0x78/0xf4)
>>> [  240.580864] [<c02bef94>] (driver_register) from [<c029e99c>] (exynos_drm_platform_probe+0x34/0x234)
>>> [  240.589890] [<c029e99c>] (exynos_drm_platform_probe) from [<c02bfcf0>] (platform_drv_probe+0x48/0xa4)
>>> [  240.599090] [<c02bfcf0>] (platform_drv_probe) from [<c02be680>] (driver_probe_device+0x13c/0x37c)
>>> [  240.607940] [<c02be680>] (driver_probe_device) from [<c02be954>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98)
>>> [  240.616360] [<c02be954>] (__driver_attach) from [<c02bcc00>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x88)
>>> [  240.624517] [<c02bcc00>] (bus_for_each_dev) from [<c02bdce0>] (bus_add_driver+0xe4/0x200)
>>> [  240.632679] [<c02bdce0>] (bus_add_driver) from [<c02bef94>] (driver_register+0x78/0xf4)
>>> [  240.640667] [<c02bef94>] (driver_register) from [<c029e938>] (exynos_drm_init+0x70/0xa0)
>>> [  240.648739] [<c029e938>] (exynos_drm_init) from [<c00089b0>] (do_one_initcall+0xac/0x1f0)
>>> [  240.656914] [<c00089b0>] (do_one_initcall) from [<c074bd90>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x10c/0x1d8)
>>> [  240.665591] [<c074bd90>] (kernel_init_freeable) from [<c051eabc>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xec)
>>> [  240.673661] [<c051eabc>] (kernel_init) from [<c000f268>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c)
>>> [  240.681196] 3 locks held by swapper/0/1:
>>> [  240.685091]  #0:  (&dev->mutex){......}, at: [<c02be908>] __driver_attach+0x48/0x98
>>> [  240.692732]  #1:  (&dev->mutex){......}, at: [<c02be918>] __driver_attach+0x58/0x98
>>> [  240.700367]  #2:  (&dev->mutex){......}, at: [<c02be908>] __driver_attach+0x48/0x98
>>
>>
>> This is caused by patch moving platform devices to
>> /sys/devices/platform[1]. Since this patch registering platform
>> drivers/devices in probe of platform device causes deadlocks. I guess
>> now all driver registration should be moved to exynos_drm_init and it
>> seems better location for it IMHO.
> 
> Thanks. It might be a chance that we could separate sub drivers of
> Exynos drm into independent modules so that they can be called
> independently because if we move them to exynos_drm_init then the
> deferred probe wouldn't work correctly.

For full separation of sub-drivers component matching code should be
fixed first. Now it usually works because components are probed before
exynos_drm_match_add and this is because components are probed during
sub-driver registrations.

Regards
Andrzej

> 
> Thanks,
> Inki Dae
> 
>>
>> Regards
>> Andrzej
>>
>> [1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg56101.html
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Full dmesg and config attached.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2014-11-18 11:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-11-06  9:06 [BUG] blocked task after exynos_drm_init Krzysztof Kozlowski
2014-11-06  9:06 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2014-11-06  9:06 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2014-11-18 10:42 ` Andrzej Hajda
2014-11-18 10:42   ` Andrzej Hajda
2014-11-18 10:52   ` Inki Dae
2014-11-18 10:52     ` Inki Dae
2014-11-18 10:52     ` Inki Dae
2014-11-18 11:04     ` Andrzej Hajda [this message]
2014-11-18 11:04       ` Andrzej Hajda
2014-11-18 12:29     ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-11-18 12:29       ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2014-11-18 16:32       ` Grant Likely
2014-11-18 16:32         ` Grant Likely

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=546B27B4.4040808@samsung.com \
    --to=a.hajda@samsung.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=inki.dae@samsung.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.