<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]SKL KBL ICL: igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists - dmesg-warn - WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111923">111923</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Summary</th>
<td>[CI][SHARDS]SKL KBL ICL: igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists - 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_7014/shard-kbl1/igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists.html">https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_7014/shard-kbl1/igt@i915_selftest@live_execlists.html</a>
<4> [2709.442616] ========================================================
<4> [2709.442619] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
<4> [2709.442621] 5.4.0-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_7014+ #1 Tainted: G U
<4> [2709.442623] --------------------------------------------------------
<4> [2709.442626] i915_selftest/7718 just changed the state of lock:
<4> [2709.442628] ffff88825da80ea0 (&i915_request_get(rq)->submit/1){-...}, at:
__i915_sw_fence_complete+0x1b2/0x250 [i915]
<4> [2709.442673] but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
<4> [2709.442675] (&ce->pin_mutex/2){+...}
<4> [2709.442676]
and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
<4> [2709.442681]
other info that might help us debug this:
<4> [2709.442683] Chain exists of:
&i915_request_get(rq)->submit/1 --> &engine->active.lock --> &ce->pin_mutex/2
<4> [2709.442688] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
<4> [2709.442691] CPU0 CPU1
<4> [2709.442693] ---- ----
<4> [2709.442694] lock(&ce->pin_mutex/2);
<4> [2709.442696] local_irq_disable();
<4> [2709.442699]
lock(&i915_request_get(rq)->submit/1);
<4> [2709.442702] lock(&engine->active.lock);
<4> [2709.442704] <Interrupt>
<4> [2709.442705] lock(&i915_request_get(rq)->submit/1);
<4> [2709.442708]
*** DEADLOCK ***</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>