From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix nesting of filelist_mutex vs struct_mutex in i915_ppgtt_info
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 15:28:03 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pop1t2cs.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160822121557.GC856@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:09:48PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> > [ 284.922349] ======================================================
>> > [ 284.922355] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> > [ 284.922361] 4.8.0-rc2+ #430 Tainted: G W
>> > [ 284.922366] -------------------------------------------------------
>> > [ 284.922371] cat/1197 is trying to acquire lock:
>> > [ 284.922376] (&dev->filelist_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa0055ba2>] i915_ppgtt_info+0x82/0x390 [i915]
>> > [ 284.922423]
>> > [ 284.922423] but task is already holding lock:
>> > [ 284.922429] (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0055b55>] i915_ppgtt_info+0x35/0x390 [i915]
>> > [ 284.922465]
>> > [ 284.922465] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>> > [ 284.922465]
>> > [ 284.922471]
>> > [ 284.922471] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>> > [ 284.922477]
>> > -> #1 (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.+.}:
>> > [ 284.922493] [<ffffffff81087710>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x80
>> > [ 284.922505] [<ffffffff8143e96f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x360
>> > [ 284.922520] [<ffffffffa004f877>] print_context_stats+0x37/0xf0 [i915]
>> > [ 284.922549] [<ffffffffa00535f5>] i915_gem_object_info+0x265/0x490 [i915]
>> > [ 284.922581] [<ffffffff81144491>] seq_read+0xe1/0x3b0
>> > [ 284.922592] [<ffffffff811f77b3>] full_proxy_read+0x83/0xb0
>> > [ 284.922604] [<ffffffff8111ba03>] __vfs_read+0x23/0x110
>> > [ 284.922616] [<ffffffff8111c9b9>] vfs_read+0x89/0x110
>> > [ 284.922626] [<ffffffff8111dbf4>] SyS_read+0x44/0xa0
>> > [ 284.922636] [<ffffffff81442be9>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xac
>> > [ 284.922648]
>> > -> #0 (&dev->filelist_mutex){+.+...}:
>> > [ 284.922667] [<ffffffff810871fc>] __lock_acquire+0x10fc/0x1270
>> > [ 284.922678] [<ffffffff81087710>] lock_acquire+0x60/0x80
>> > [ 284.922689] [<ffffffff8143e96f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x360
>> > [ 284.922701] [<ffffffffa0055ba2>] i915_ppgtt_info+0x82/0x390 [i915]
>> > [ 284.922729] [<ffffffff81144491>] seq_read+0xe1/0x3b0
>> > [ 284.922739] [<ffffffff811f77b3>] full_proxy_read+0x83/0xb0
>> > [ 284.922750] [<ffffffff8111ba03>] __vfs_read+0x23/0x110
>> > [ 284.922761] [<ffffffff8111c9b9>] vfs_read+0x89/0x110
>> > [ 284.922771] [<ffffffff8111dbf4>] SyS_read+0x44/0xa0
>> > [ 284.922781] [<ffffffff81442be9>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xac
>> > [ 284.922793]
>> > [ 284.922793] other info that might help us debug this:
>> > [ 284.922793]
>> > [ 284.922809] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> > [ 284.922809]
>> > [ 284.922818] CPU0 CPU1
>> > [ 284.922825] ---- ----
>> > [ 284.922831] lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
>> > [ 284.922842] lock(&dev->filelist_mutex);
>> > [ 284.922854] lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
>> > [ 284.922865] lock(&dev->filelist_mutex);
>> > [ 284.922875]
>> > [ 284.922875] *** DEADLOCK ***
>> > [ 284.922875]
>> > [ 284.922888] 3 locks held by cat/1197:
>> > [ 284.922895] #0: (debugfs_srcu){......}, at: [<ffffffff811f7730>] full_proxy_read+0x0/0xb0
>> > [ 284.922919] #1: (&p->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811443e8>] seq_read+0x38/0x3b0
>> > [ 284.922942] #2: (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0055b55>] i915_ppgtt_info+0x35/0x390 [i915]
>> > [ 284.922983]
>>
>> Do we have a regressing commit reference?
>
> For an unlikely ABBA debugfs deadlock that no one reported?
Of course, that one line in the commit message would have been
sufficient for me to not ask...
BR,
Jani.
>
> 1d2ac403ae3bfde7c50328ee0d39d3fb3d8d9823
> drm: Protect dev->filelist with its own mutex
>
> -Chris
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-22 12:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-22 11:35 [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix nesting of filelist_mutex vs struct_mutex in i915_ppgtt_info Chris Wilson
2016-08-22 11:44 ` Joonas Lahtinen
2016-08-22 12:09 ` Jani Nikula
2016-08-22 12:15 ` Chris Wilson
2016-08-22 12:28 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2016-08-22 12:11 ` ✗ Ro.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
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=87pop1t2cs.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.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.