[Bug 111626] [CI][SHARDS] igt at perf_pmu@busy-idle-no-semaphores-bcs0 - dmesg-warn - WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111626

Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #30 from Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> ---
commit 07779a76ee1f93f930cf697b22be73d16e14f50c
Author: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date:   Wed Nov 20 12:54:33 2019 +0000

    drm/i915: Mark up the calling context for intel_wakeref_put()

    Previously, we assumed we could use mutex_trylock() within an atomic
    context, falling back to a worker if contended. However, such trickery
    is illegal inside interrupt context, and so we need to always use a
    worker under such circumstances. As we normally are in process context,
    we can typically use a plain mutex, and only defer to a work when we
    know we are being called from an interrupt path.

    Fixes: 51fbd8de87dc ("drm/i915/pmu: Atomically acquire the gt_pm wakeref")
    References: a0855d24fc22d ("locking/mutex: Complain upon mutex API misuse
in IRQ contexts")
    References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111626
    Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
    Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
    Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
    Link:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20191120125433.3767149-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk

Good things come to those wait, or so I am told.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx-bugs/attachments/20191120/fa67ca9c/attachment.html>