[Bug 111945] New: [CI][SHARDS] igt at gem_ctx_switch@queue-heavy|igt at gem_exec_flush@basic-wb-prw-default - dmesg-warn - WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org
bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org
Wed Oct 9 19:09:33 UTC 2019
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111945
Bug ID: 111945
Summary: [CI][SHARDS]
igt at gem_ctx_switch@queue-heavy|igt at gem_exec_flush@basi
c-wb-prw-default - dmesg-warn - WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe
-> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
Product: DRI
Version: DRI git
Hardware: Other
OS: All
Status: NEW
Severity: not set
Priority: not set
Component: DRM/Intel
Assignee: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org
Reporter: lakshminarayana.vudum at intel.com
QA Contact: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org
CC: intel-gfx-bugs at lists.freedesktop.org
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7033/shard-kbl7/igt@gem_ctx_switch@queue-heavy.html
<6> [1065.900423] Console: switching to colour dummy device 80x25
<6> [1065.900479] [IGT] gem_ctx_switch: executing
<5> [1065.903630] Setting dangerous option reset - tainting kernel
<6> [1065.912493] [IGT] gem_ctx_switch: starting subtest queue-heavy
<4> [1087.386382]
<4> [1087.386392] =====================================================
<4> [1087.386403] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
<4> [1087.386416] 5.4.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_7033+ #1 Tainted: G U
<4> [1087.386429] -----------------------------------------------------
<4> [1087.386444] kworker/2:3/423 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
<4> [1087.386460] ffff88826f4250c8 (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at:
__mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x18e/0x2b0
<4> [1087.386488]
and this task is already holding:
<4> [1087.386500] ffff88825875c298 (&(&timelines->lock)->rlock){-...}, at:
intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout+0x15c/0x520 [i915]
<4> [1087.386655] which would create a new lock dependency:
<4> [1087.386662] (&(&timelines->lock)->rlock){-...} ->
(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
<4> [1087.386677]
but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock:
<4> [1087.386692] (&(&timelines->lock)->rlock){-...}
<4> [1087.386695]
... which became HARDIRQ-irq-safe at:
<4> [1087.386724] lock_acquire+0xa7/0x1c0
<4> [1087.386739] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x33/0x50
<4> [1087.386876] intel_timeline_enter+0x64/0x150 [i915]
<4> [1087.387000] __engine_park+0x1db/0x400 [i915]
<4> [1087.387120] ____intel_wakeref_put_last+0x1c/0x70 [i915]
<4> [1087.387234] i915_sample+0x2de/0x300 [i915]
<4> [1087.387249] __hrtimer_run_queues+0x121/0x4a0
<4> [1087.387262] hrtimer_interrupt+0xea/0x250
<4> [1087.387276] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x96/0x280
<4> [1087.387289] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20
<4> [1087.387303] cpuidle_enter_state+0xb2/0x450
<4> [1087.387315] cpuidle_enter+0x24/0x40
<4> [1087.387326] do_idle+0x1e7/0x250
<4> [1087.387336] cpu_startup_entry+0x14/0x20
<4> [1087.387347] start_kernel+0x4d2/0x4f4
<4> [1087.387357] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
<4> [1087.387368]
to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
<4> [1087.387381] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
<4> [1087.387384]
... which became HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe at:
<4> [1087.387410] ...
<4> [1087.387416] lock_acquire+0xa7/0x1c0
<4> [1087.387434] _raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
<4> [1087.387447] __mutex_lock+0x198/0x9d0
<4> [1087.387461] pipe_wait+0x8f/0xc0
<4> [1087.387470] pipe_read+0x235/0x310
<4> [1087.387480] new_sync_read+0x10f/0x1a0
<4> [1087.387490] vfs_read+0x96/0x160
<4> [1087.387497] ksys_read+0x9f/0xe0
<4> [1087.387509] do_syscall_64+0x4f/0x210
<4> [1087.387523] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
<4> [1087.387535]
other info that might help us debug this:
<4> [1087.387553] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
<4> [1087.387568] CPU0 CPU1
<4> [1087.387580] ---- ----
<4> [1087.387590] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
<4> [1087.387601] local_irq_disable();
<4> [1087.387610]
lock(&(&timelines->lock)->rlock);
<4> [1087.387621]
lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
<4> [1087.387632] <Interrupt>
<4> [1087.387637] lock(&(&timelines->lock)->rlock);
<4> [1087.387646]
*** DEADLOCK ***
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7039/shard-skl3/igt@gem_exec_flush@basic-wb-prw-default.html
<4> [2139.620735] =====================================================
<4> [2139.620762] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
<4> [2139.620795] 5.4.0-rc2-CI-CI_DRM_7039+ #1 Tainted: G U
<4> [2139.620828] -----------------------------------------------------
<4> [2139.620857] kworker/1:0/5423 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to
acquire:
<4> [2139.620882] ffff888176b25e08 (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at:
__mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xa6/0x2b0
<4> [2139.620936]
and this task is already holding:
<4> [2139.620958] ffff88816d5fc288 (&(&timelines->lock)->rlock){-...}, at:
intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout+0x17d/0x540 [i915]
<4> [2139.621273] which would create a new lock dependency:
<4> [2139.621291] (&(&timelines->lock)->rlock){-...} ->
(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
<4> [2139.621328]
but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock:
<4> [2139.621354] (&(&timelines->lock)->rlock){-...}
<4> [2139.621360]
... which became HARDIRQ-irq-safe at:
<4> [2139.621410] lock_acquire+0xa7/0x1c0
<4> [2139.621436] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x33/0x50
<4> [2139.621732] intel_timeline_enter+0x64/0x150 [i915]
<4> [2139.622007] __engine_park+0x1db/0x400 [i915]
<4> [2139.622258] ____intel_wakeref_put_last+0x1c/0x70 [i915]
<4> [2139.622513] i915_sample+0x2de/0x300 [i915]
<4> [2139.622539] __hrtimer_run_queues+0x121/0x4a0
<4> [2139.622562] hrtimer_interrupt+0xea/0x250
<4> [2139.622586] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x96/0x280
<4> [2139.622610] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20
<4> [2139.622634] cpuidle_enter_state+0xb2/0x450
<4> [2139.622656] cpuidle_enter+0x24/0x40
<4> [2139.622682] do_idle+0x1e7/0x250
<4> [2139.622706] cpu_startup_entry+0x14/0x20
<4> [2139.622735] start_kernel+0x4d2/0x4f4
<4> [2139.622757] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0
<4> [2139.622775]
to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
<4> [2139.622806] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
<4> [2139.622812]
... which became HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe at:
<4> [2139.622852] ...
<4> [2139.622864] lock_acquire+0xa7/0x1c0
<4> [2139.622897] _raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40
<4> [2139.622920] __mutex_lock+0x198/0x9d0
<4> [2139.622943] hub_port_init+0x70/0xcd0
<4> [2139.622965] hub_event+0x797/0x16d0
<4> [2139.622987] process_one_work+0x26a/0x620
<4> [2139.623009] worker_thread+0x37/0x380
<4> [2139.623033] kthread+0x119/0x130
<4> [2139.623056] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
<4> [2139.623072]
other info that might help us debug this:
<4> [2139.623102] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
<4> [2139.623127] CPU0 CPU1
<4> [2139.623145] ---- ----
<4> [2139.623163] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
<4> [2139.623185] local_irq_disable();
<4> [2139.623206]
lock(&(&timelines->lock)->rlock);
<4> [2139.623234]
lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
<4> [2139.623261] <Interrupt>
<4> [2139.623274] lock(&(&timelines->lock)->rlock);
<4> [2139.623296]
*** DEADLOCK ***
--
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/20191009/4031be58/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the intel-gfx-bugs
mailing list