| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <77ac8c31-68b8-95c6-46d3-e8037fb6c820@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:12:05 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
To: imre.deak@...el.com
Cc: sedat.dilek@...il.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
intel-gfx <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [Linux v4.10.0-rc1+] Still call-traces after
suspend-resume (pm? i915? cpu/hotplug?)
On 1/31/2017 1:02 PM, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:39:35PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On 1/31/2017 11:58 AM, Imre Deak wrote:
>>> Hi Rafael,
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:44:37PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/2017 2:33 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have already reported this issue in [1].
>>>>>>> One of the issue was solved.
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, it looks like there is still a different problem here
>>>>>>> (Ubuntu/precise AMD64).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried v4.10-rc1 and latest Linus tree up to...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit 98473f9f3f9bd404873cd1178c8be7d6d619f0d1
>>>>>>> "mm/filemap: fix parameters to test_bit()"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here we go...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ 29.636047] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
>>>>>>> drivers/base/power/runtime.c:1032
>>>>>>> [ 29.636055] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 1500, name: Xorg
>>>>>>> [ 29.636058] 1 lock held by Xorg/1500:
>>>>>>> [ 29.636060] #0: (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.+.}, at:
>>>>>>> [<ffffffffa0680c13>] i915_mutex_lock_interruptible+0x43/0x140 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636107] CPU: 0 PID: 1500 Comm: Xorg Not tainted
>>>>>>> 4.10.0-rc1-6-iniza-amd64 #1
>>>>>>> [ 29.636109] Hardware name: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
>>>>>>> 530U3BI/530U4BI/530U4BH/530U3BI/530U4BI/530U4BH, BIOS 13XK 03/28/2013
>>>>>>> [ 29.636111] Call Trace:
>>>>>>> [ 29.636120] dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
>>>>>>> [ 29.636124] ___might_sleep+0x196/0x260
>>>>>>> [ 29.636127] __might_sleep+0x53/0xb0
>>>>>>> [ 29.636131] __pm_runtime_resume+0x7a/0x90
>>>>>>> [ 29.636159] intel_runtime_pm_get+0x25/0x90 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636189] aliasing_gtt_bind_vma+0xaa/0xf0 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636220] i915_vma_bind+0xaf/0x1e0 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636248] i915_gem_execbuffer_relocate_entry+0x513/0x6f0 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636272] i915_gem_execbuffer_relocate_vma.isra.34+0x188/0x250 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636275] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>>>>>>> [ 29.636294] ? i915_gem_execbuffer_reserve_vma.isra.31+0x152/0x1f0 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636316] ? i915_gem_execbuffer_reserve.isra.32+0x372/0x3a0 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636342] i915_gem_do_execbuffer.isra.38+0xa70/0x1a40 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636347] ? __might_fault+0x4e/0xb0
>>>>>>> [ 29.636373] i915_gem_execbuffer2+0xc5/0x260 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636376] ? __might_fault+0x4e/0xb0
>>>>>>> [ 29.636395] drm_ioctl+0x206/0x450 [drm]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636420] ? i915_gem_execbuffer+0x340/0x340 [i915]
>>>>>>> [ 29.636425] ? __fget+0x5/0x200
>>>>>>> [ 29.636429] do_vfs_ioctl+0x91/0x6f0
>>>>>>> [ 29.636431] ? __fget+0x111/0x200
>>>>>>> [ 29.636433] ? __fget+0x5/0x200
>>>>>>> [ 29.636436] SyS_ioctl+0x79/0x90
>>>>>>> [ 29.636441] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On suspend/resume I see the same call trace.
>>>>>>> [2] points to the "BUG" line.
>>>>>> Well, this appears to be an i915 issue, but not a serious one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly, a function that may sleep (pm_runtime_get_sync() in
>>>>>> intel_runtime_pm_get()) is called with disabled interrupts. If I
>>>>>> understand the code correctly, though, it actually is not going to
>>>>>> sleep in this particular case, because pm_runtime_get_sync() has
>>>>>> already been called once for this device in the same code path which
>>>>>> means that this particular instance will return immediately, so this
>>>>>> is a false-positive (most likely).
>>> Not sure what's the root cause, but thought to clarify the above:
>>>
>>> Yes, i915_gem_do_execbuffer() does take an RPM reference to optimize
>>> things, so the RPM get in aliasing_gtt_bind_vma() won't need to resume
>>> the device on this path. This isn't a guarantee though,
>>> aliasing_gtt_bind_vma() could be called from other places without an RPM
>>> reference. So preemption being disabled at that point is not
>>> intentional. I also can't see where on the above path it would get
>>> disabled due to a bug or otherwise.
>> The i915 code is correct AFAICS, but the core complains about a nested
>> invocation of pm_runtime_get_sync() with disabled interrupts (which looks OK
>> though), so the complaint is a false positive.
> Well, my point was that interrupts (or preemption) doesn't seem to get
> disabled anywhere on that path.
But the might_sleep_if() assertion in __pm_runtime_resume() triggers for
some reason. I wonder why then?
Of course, I may be overlooking something in the i915 code.
In any case, if you do
pm_runtime_get_sync(dev)
local_irq_disable()
pm_runtime_get_sync(dev)
<do something>
pm_runtime_put(dev)
local_irq_enable()
pm_runtime_put(dev)
that is technically correct, but it will cause the core to complain.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists