[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200212102006.m4psb6rqdps2jw2w@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:20:06 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando@...ma.Stanford.EDU>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.4.17-rt9
On 2020-02-07 07:11:06 [+0100], Mike Galbraith wrote:
> drm/i915/gt: use a LOCAL_IRQ_LOCK in __timeline_mark_lock()
>
> Quoting drm/i915/gt: Mark up the nested engine-pm timeline lock as irqsafe
>
> We use a fake timeline->mutex lock to reassure lockdep that the timeline
> is always locked when emitting requests. However, the use inside
> __engine_park() may be inside hardirq and so lockdep now complains about
> the mixed irq-state of the nested locked. Disable irqs around the
> lockdep tracking to keep it happy.
>
> This lockdep appeasement breaks RT because we take sleeping locks between
> __timeline_mark_lock()/unlock(). Use a LOCAL_IRQ_LOCK instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efaukt@....de>
Applied, thank you.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists