<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body><table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>Bug ID</th>
<td><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - [CI][SHARDS] igt@perf_pmu@busy-idle-no-semaphores-bcs0 - dmesg-warn - WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111626">111626</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Summary</th>
<td>[CI][SHARDS] igt@perf_pmu@busy-idle-no-semaphores-bcs0 - dmesg-warn - WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Product</th>
<td>DRI
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Version</th>
<td>DRI git
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Hardware</th>
<td>Other
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>OS</th>
<td>All
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Status</th>
<td>NEW
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Severity</th>
<td>not set
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Priority</th>
<td>not set
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Component</th>
<td>DRM/Intel
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Assignee</th>
<td>intel-gfx-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Reporter</th>
<td>lakshminarayana.vudum@intel.com
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>QA Contact</th>
<td>intel-gfx-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>CC</th>
<td>intel-gfx-bugs@lists.freedesktop.org
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<pre><a href="https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6847/shard-skl5/igt@perf_pmu@busy-idle-no-semaphores-bcs0.html">https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_6847/shard-skl5/igt@perf_pmu@busy-idle-no-semaphores-bcs0.html</a>
[IGT] perf_pmu: executing
<6> [1794.462364] [IGT] perf_pmu: starting subtest busy-idle-no-semaphores-bcs0
<4> [1795.080225]
<4> [1795.080255] ========================================================
<4> [1795.080277] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
<4> [1795.080299] 5.3.0-rc7-CI-CI_DRM_6847+ #1 Tainted: G U
<4> [1795.080316] --------------------------------------------------------
<4> [1795.080334] kworker/0:0H/3056 just changed the state of lock:
<4> [1795.080352] 0000000062a190ff (&timeline->mutex/2){-...}, at:
__engine_park+0x3e/0x320 [i915]
<4> [1795.080638] but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
<4> [1795.080655] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
<4> [1795.080660]
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
<4> [1795.080698]
other info that might help us debug this:
<4> [1795.080716] Chain exists of:
&timeline->mutex/2 --> &(&timelines->lock)->rlock -->
&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock
<4> [1795.080755] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
<4> [1795.080774] CPU0 CPU1
<4> [1795.080788] ---- ----
<4> [1795.080802] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
<4> [1795.080819] local_irq_disable();
<4> [1795.080835] lock(&timeline->mutex/2);
<4> [1795.080855]
lock(&(&timelines->lock)->rlock);
<4> [1795.080876] <Interrupt>
<4> [1795.080886] lock(&timeline->mutex/2);
<4> [1795.080904]
*** DEADLOCK ***</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>