From: "Borah, Chaitanya Kumar" <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: <willy@infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Kurmi, Suresh Kumar" <suresh.kumar.kurmi@intel.com>,
"Saarinen, Jani" <jani.saarinen@intel.com>,
<ravitejax.veesam@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Regression on linux-next (next-20260324 )
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 20:01:43 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d5b882b8-19a9-4e83-b6a0-ecfad3e61522@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260420130318.GD3102924@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Hello Peter,
On 4/20/2026 6:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 09:50:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 01:56:33PM +0530, Borah, Chaitanya Kumar wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
>>>> index b1834ab7e782..bb8b410779d4 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
>>>> +++ b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
>>>> @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ __ww_waiter_last(struct mutex *lock)
>>>> struct mutex_waiter *w = lock->first_waiter;
>>>> if (w)
>>>> - w = list_prev_entry(w, list);
>>>> + w = __ww_waiter_prev(lock, w);
>>>> return w;
>>>> }
>>> Thank you for the response, Peter. Unfortunately, the issue is still seen
>>> with this change.
>>
>> Bah, indeed. Looking at this after the weekend I see that it's actually
>> wrong.
>>
>> But I haven't yet had a new idea. I don't suppose there is a relatively
>> easy way to reproduce this issue outside of your CI robot?
>>
>> My current working thesis is that since this is graphics, this is
>> ww_mutex related. I'll go over this code once more...
>
> Since you've not provided a reproducer, can I ask you to try the below?
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 186b463fe326..a93e57fc53b1 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -229,10 +229,8 @@ __mutex_remove_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter)
> __mutex_clear_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAGS);
> lock->first_waiter = NULL;
> } else {
> - if (lock->first_waiter == waiter) {
> - lock->first_waiter = list_first_entry(&waiter->list,
> - struct mutex_waiter, list);
> - }
> + if (lock->first_waiter == waiter)
> + lock->first_waiter = list_next_entry(waiter, list);
> list_del(&waiter->list);
> }
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
> index 016f0db892a5..875b303511b3 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
> +++ b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
> @@ -6,6 +6,32 @@
> #define MUTEX_WAITER mutex_waiter
> #define WAIT_LOCK wait_lock
>
> +/*
> + * +-------+
> + * | 3 | <+
> + * +-------+ |
> + * ^ |
> + * | |
> + * v |
> + * +-------+ +-------+ |
> + * | first | --> | 1 | |
> + * +-------+ +-------+ |
> + * ^ |
> + * | |
> + * v |
> + * +-------+ |
> + * | 2 | <+
> + * +-------+
> + */
> +
> +/*
> + * Specifically:
> + *
> + * for (cur = __ww_waiter_first(); cur; cur = __ww_waiter_next())
> + * ...
> + *
> + * should iterate like: 1 2 3
> + */
> static inline struct mutex_waiter *
> __ww_waiter_first(struct mutex *lock)
> __must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
> @@ -18,23 +44,21 @@ __ww_waiter_next(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *w)
> __must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
> {
> w = list_next_entry(w, list);
> - if (lock->first_waiter == w)
> - return NULL;
> -
> - return w;
> -}
> -
> -static inline struct mutex_waiter *
> -__ww_waiter_prev(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *w)
> - __must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
> -{
> - w = list_prev_entry(w, list);
> - if (lock->first_waiter == w)
> + /* We've already seen first, terminate */
> + if (w == __ww_waiter_first(lock))
> return NULL;
>
> return w;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Specifically:
> + *
> + * for (cur = __ww_waiter_last(); cur; cur = __ww_waiter_prev())
> + * ...
> + *
> + * should iterate like: 3 2 1
> + */
> static inline struct mutex_waiter *
> __ww_waiter_last(struct mutex *lock)
> __must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
> @@ -46,6 +70,18 @@ __ww_waiter_last(struct mutex *lock)
> return w;
> }
>
> +static inline struct mutex_waiter *
> +__ww_waiter_prev(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *w)
> + __must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
> +{
> + w = list_prev_entry(w, list);
> + /* We've already seen last, terminate */
> + if (w == __ww_waiter_last(lock))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + return w;
> +}
> +
> static inline void
> __ww_waiter_add(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *waiter, struct mutex_waiter *pos)
> __must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
Thank you for the patch.
This seems to fix the issue on our CI machine. The diff turned out to be
slightly different, pasting it here just in case.
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index 186b463fe326..a93e57fc53b1 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -229,10 +229,8 @@ __mutex_remove_waiter(struct mutex *lock, struct
mutex_waiter *waiter)
__mutex_clear_flag(lock, MUTEX_FLAGS);
lock->first_waiter = NULL;
} else {
- if (lock->first_waiter == waiter) {
- lock->first_waiter = list_first_entry(&waiter->list,
- struct
mutex_waiter, list);
- }
+ if (lock->first_waiter == waiter)
+ lock->first_waiter = list_next_entry(waiter, list);
list_del(&waiter->list);
}
diff --git a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
index 016f0db892a5..875b303511b3 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
+++ b/kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h
@@ -6,6 +6,32 @@
#define MUTEX_WAITER mutex_waiter
#define WAIT_LOCK wait_lock
+/*
+ * +-------+
+ * | 3 | <+
+ * +-------+ |
+ * ^ |
+ * | |
+ * v |
+ * +-------+ +-------+ |
+ * | first | --> | 1 | |
+ * +-------+ +-------+ |
+ * ^ |
+ * | |
+ * v |
+ * +-------+ |
+ * | 2 | <+
+ * +-------+
+ */
+
+/*
+ * Specifically:
+ *
+ * for (cur = __ww_waiter_first(); cur; cur = __ww_waiter_next())
+ * ...
+ *
+ * should iterate like: 1 2 3
+ */
static inline struct mutex_waiter *
__ww_waiter_first(struct mutex *lock)
__must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
@@ -18,31 +44,41 @@ __ww_waiter_next(struct mutex *lock, struct
mutex_waiter *w)
__must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
{
w = list_next_entry(w, list);
- if (lock->first_waiter == w)
+ /* We've already seen first, terminate */
+ if (w == __ww_waiter_first(lock))
return NULL;
return w;
}
+/*
+ * Specifically:
+ *
+ * for (cur = __ww_waiter_last(); cur; cur = __ww_waiter_prev())
+ * ...
+ *
+ * should iterate like: 3 2 1
+ */
static inline struct mutex_waiter *
-__ww_waiter_prev(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *w)
+__ww_waiter_last(struct mutex *lock)
__must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
{
- w = list_prev_entry(w, list);
- if (lock->first_waiter == w)
- return NULL;
+ struct mutex_waiter *w = lock->first_waiter;
+ if (w)
+ w = list_prev_entry(w, list);
return w;
}
static inline struct mutex_waiter *
-__ww_waiter_last(struct mutex *lock)
+__ww_waiter_prev(struct mutex *lock, struct mutex_waiter *w)
__must_hold(&lock->wait_lock)
{
- struct mutex_waiter *w = lock->first_waiter;
+ w = list_prev_entry(w, list);
+ /* We've already seen last, terminate */
+ if (w == __ww_waiter_last(lock))
+ return NULL;
- if (w)
- w = list_prev_entry(w, list);
return w;
}
==
Chaitanya
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-21 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-27 13:39 Regression on linux-next (next-20260324 ) Borah, Chaitanya Kumar
2026-03-27 16:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-27 16:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-03-30 8:26 ` Borah, Chaitanya Kumar
2026-03-30 19:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-20 13:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-21 6:45 ` John Stultz
2026-04-21 10:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-21 12:54 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-21 14:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-21 14:45 ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-04-21 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-21 15:48 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-21 17:29 ` John Stultz
2026-04-21 20:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-22 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-04-22 12:07 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-04-22 15:52 ` mikhail.v.gavrilov
2026-04-21 14:31 ` Borah, Chaitanya Kumar [this message]
2026-03-27 16:36 ` ✗ LGCI.VerificationFailed: failure for " Patchwork
2026-03-27 16:44 ` ✗ LGCI.VerificationFailed: failure for Regression on linux-next (next-20260324 ) (rev2) Patchwork
2026-03-27 16:49 ` Patchwork
2026-04-20 19:22 ` ✗ LGCI.VerificationFailed: failure for Regression on linux-next (next-20260324 ) (rev3) Patchwork
2026-04-21 0:06 ` Patchwork
2026-04-21 15:17 ` ✗ LGCI.VerificationFailed: failure for Regression on linux-next (next-20260324 ) (rev4) Patchwork
2026-04-21 15:33 ` Patchwork
2026-04-22 9:24 ` ✗ LGCI.VerificationFailed: failure for Regression on linux-next (next-20260324 ) (rev5) Patchwork
2026-04-22 9:54 ` 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=d5b882b8-19a9-4e83-b6a0-ecfad3e61522@intel.com \
--to=chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.saarinen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ravitejax.veesam@intel.com \
--cc=suresh.kumar.kurmi@intel.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.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.