On Fri, 2020-01-17 at 11:19 -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 12:56 AM Lin, Wayne Wayne.Lin@amd.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 3:57 AM To: Lin, Wayne Wayne.Lin@amd.com; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Kazlauskas, Nicholas Nicholas.Kazlauskas@amd.com; Wentland, Harry Harry.Wentland@amd.com; Zuo, Jerry Jerry.Zuo@amd.com; stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/dp_mst: Remove VCPI while disabling topology mgr
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 14:24 -0500, Lyude Paul wrote:
Reviewed-by: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com
I'll go ahead and push this to drm-misc-next-fixes right now, thanks!
Whoops-meant to say drm-misc-next here, anyway, pushed!
Thanks for your time!
I'm getting the following warning on unplug with this patch:
[ 54.010099] [ 54.011765] ====================================================== [ 54.018670] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 54.025577] 5.5.0-rc6-02274-g77381c23ee63 #47 Not tainted [ 54.031610] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 54.038516] kworker/1:6/1040 is trying to acquire lock: [ 54.044354] ffff888272af3228 (&mgr->payload_lock){+.+.}, at: drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst+0x218/0x2e4 [ 54.054957] [ 54.054957] but task is already holding lock: [ 54.061473] ffff888272af3060 (&mgr->lock){+.+.}, at: drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst+0x3c/0x2e4 [ 54.071193] [ 54.071193] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 54.071193] [ 54.080334] [ 54.080334] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 54.088697] [ 54.088697] -> #1 (&mgr->lock){+.+.}: [ 54.094440] __mutex_lock+0xc3/0x498 [ 54.099015] drm_dp_mst_topology_get_port_validated+0x25/0x80 [ 54.106018] drm_dp_update_payload_part1+0xa2/0x2e2 [ 54.112051] intel_mst_pre_enable_dp+0x144/0x18f [ 54.117791] intel_encoders_pre_enable+0x63/0x70 [ 54.123532] hsw_crtc_enable+0xa1/0x722 [ 54.128396] intel_update_crtc+0x50/0x194 [ 54.133455] skl_commit_modeset_enables+0x40c/0x540 [ 54.139485] intel_atomic_commit_tail+0x5f7/0x130d [ 54.145418] intel_atomic_commit+0x2c8/0x2d8 [ 54.150770] drm_atomic_helper_set_config+0x5a/0x70 [ 54.156801] drm_mode_setcrtc+0x2ab/0x833 [ 54.161862] drm_ioctl+0x2e5/0x424 [ 54.166242] vfs_ioctl+0x21/0x2f [ 54.170426] do_vfs_ioctl+0x5fb/0x61e [ 54.175096] ksys_ioctl+0x55/0x75 [ 54.179377] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x1a/0x1e [ 54.184146] do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x6d [ 54.188721] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 54.194946] [ 54.194946] -> #0 (&mgr->payload_lock){+.+.}: [ 54.201463] [ 54.201463] other info that might help us debug this: [ 54.201463] [ 54.210410] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 54.210410] [ 54.217025] CPU0 CPU1 [ 54.222082] ---- ---- [ 54.227138] lock(&mgr->lock); [ 54.230643] lock(&mgr->payload_lock); [ 54.237742] lock(&mgr->lock); [ 54.244062] lock(&mgr->payload_lock); [ 54.248346] [ 54.248346] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 54.248346] [ 54.254959] 7 locks held by kworker/1:6/1040: [ 54.259822] #0: ffff888275c4f528 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.}, at: worker_thread+0x455/0x6e2 [ 54.269451] #1: ffffc9000119beb0 ((work_completion)(&(&dev_priv->hotplug.hotplug_work)->work)){+.+.}, at: worker_thread+0x455/0x6e2 [ 54.282768] #2: ffff888272a403f0 (&dev->mode_config.mutex){+.+.}, at: i915_hotplug_work_func+0x4b/0x2be [ 54.293368] #3: ffffffff824fc6c0 (drm_connector_list_iter){.+.+}, at: i915_hotplug_work_func+0x17e/0x2be [ 54.304061] #4: ffffc9000119bc58 (crtc_ww_class_acquire){+.+.}, at: drm_helper_probe_detect_ctx+0x40/0xfd [ 54.314855] #5: ffff888272a40470 (crtc_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}, at: drm_modeset_lock+0x74/0xe2 [ 54.324385] #6: ffff888272af3060 (&mgr->lock){+.+.}, at: drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst+0x3c/0x2e4 [ 54.334597] [ 54.334597] stack backtrace: [ 54.339464] CPU: 1 PID: 1040 Comm: kworker/1:6 Not tainted 5.5.0-rc6-02274-g77381c23ee63 #47 [ 54.348893] Hardware name: Google Fizz/Fizz, BIOS Google_Fizz.10139.39.0 01/04/2018 [ 54.357451] Workqueue: events i915_hotplug_work_func [ 54.362995] Call Trace: [ 54.365724] dump_stack+0x71/0x9c [ 54.369427] check_noncircular+0x91/0xbc [ 54.373809] ? __lock_acquire+0xc9e/0xf66 [ 54.378286] ? __lock_acquire+0xc9e/0xf66 [ 54.382763] ? lock_acquire+0x175/0x1ac [ 54.387048] ? drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst+0x218/0x2e4 [ 54.393177] ? __mutex_lock+0xc3/0x498 [ 54.397362] ? drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst+0x218/0x2e4 [ 54.403492] ? drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst+0x218/0x2e4 [ 54.409620] ? drm_dp_dpcd_access+0xd9/0x101 [ 54.414390] ? drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst+0x218/0x2e4 [ 54.420517] ? drm_dp_mst_topology_mgr_set_mst+0x218/0x2e4 [ 54.426645] ? intel_digital_port_connected+0x34d/0x35c [ 54.432482] ? intel_dp_detect+0x227/0x44e [ 54.437056] ? ww_mutex_lock+0x49/0x9a [ 54.441242] ? drm_helper_probe_detect_ctx+0x75/0xfd [ 54.446789] ? intel_encoder_hotplug+0x4b/0x97 [ 54.451752] ? intel_ddi_hotplug+0x61/0x2e0 [ 54.456423] ? mark_held_locks+0x53/0x68 [ 54.460803] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3a/0x51 [ 54.466347] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x187/0x1a4 [ 54.471310] ? drm_connector_list_iter_next+0x89/0x9a [ 54.476953] ? i915_hotplug_work_func+0x206/0x2be [ 54.482208] ? worker_thread+0x4d5/0x6e2 [ 54.486587] ? worker_thread+0x455/0x6e2 [ 54.490966] ? queue_work_on+0x64/0x64 [ 54.495151] ? kthread+0x1e9/0x1f1 [ 54.498946] ? queue_work_on+0x64/0x64 [ 54.503130] ? kthread_unpark+0x5e/0x5e [ 54.507413] ? ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
\snip
I think I've got a better fix for this that should avoid that problem, I'll write up a patch and send it out in a bit