Crash in drm_atomic_helper_commit_hw_done for 4.13 #110
Comments
|
@nullr0ute Since these are kernel warnings, could you please describe the indication of this issue and the exact way to reproduce it? |
|
I was just booting Fedora 27 to a GNOME login, it has mesa 7.2.0 plus the latest upstream GNOME dev. I can provide links to images another other details if you need them |
anholt
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 13, 2017
commit 692b482 upstream. Josef reported a HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected by lockdep: [ 1270.472259] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected [ 1270.472783] 4.14.0-rc1-xfstests-12888-g76833e8 #110 Not tainted [ 1270.473240] ----------------------------------------------------- [ 1270.473710] kworker/u5:2/5157 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: [ 1270.474239] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8da253d2>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xa2/0x280 [ 1270.474994] [ 1270.474994] and this task is already holding: [ 1270.475440] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8d2992f6>] worker_thread+0x366/0x3c0 [ 1270.476046] which would create a new lock dependency: [ 1270.476436] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} -> (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} [ 1270.476949] [ 1270.476949] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock: [ 1270.477553] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} ... [ 1270.488900] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: [ 1270.489327] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} ... [ 1270.494735] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 1270.494735] [ 1270.495250] CPU0 CPU1 [ 1270.495600] ---- ---- [ 1270.495947] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.496295] local_irq_disable(); [ 1270.496753] lock(&pool->lock/1); [ 1270.497205] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.497744] <Interrupt> [ 1270.497948] lock(&pool->lock/1); , which will cause a irq inversion deadlock if the above lock scenario happens. The root cause of this safe -> unsafe lock order is the mutex_unlock(pool->manager_arb) in manage_workers() with pool->lock held. Unlocking mutex while holding an irq spinlock was never safe and this problem has been around forever but it never got noticed because the only time the mutex is usually trylocked while holding irqlock making actual failures very unlikely and lockdep annotation missed the condition until the recent b9c16a0 ("locking/mutex: Fix lockdep_assert_held() fail"). Using mutex for pool->manager_arb has always been a bit of stretch. It primarily is an mechanism to arbitrate managership between workers which can easily be done with a pool flag. The only reason it became a mutex is that pool destruction path wants to exclude parallel managing operations. This patch replaces the mutex with a new pool flag POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE and make the destruction path wait for the current manager on a wait queue. v2: Drop unnecessary flag clearing before pool destruction as suggested by Boqun. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]> Reported-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Cc: Boqun Feng <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
anholt
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Nov 21, 2017
Josef reported a HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected by lockdep: [ 1270.472259] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected [ 1270.472783] 4.14.0-rc1-xfstests-12888-g76833e8 #110 Not tainted [ 1270.473240] ----------------------------------------------------- [ 1270.473710] kworker/u5:2/5157 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: [ 1270.474239] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8da253d2>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xa2/0x280 [ 1270.474994] [ 1270.474994] and this task is already holding: [ 1270.475440] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8d2992f6>] worker_thread+0x366/0x3c0 [ 1270.476046] which would create a new lock dependency: [ 1270.476436] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} -> (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} [ 1270.476949] [ 1270.476949] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock: [ 1270.477553] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} ... [ 1270.488900] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: [ 1270.489327] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.} ... [ 1270.494735] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 1270.494735] [ 1270.495250] CPU0 CPU1 [ 1270.495600] ---- ---- [ 1270.495947] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.496295] local_irq_disable(); [ 1270.496753] lock(&pool->lock/1); [ 1270.497205] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock); [ 1270.497744] <Interrupt> [ 1270.497948] lock(&pool->lock/1); , which will cause a irq inversion deadlock if the above lock scenario happens. The root cause of this safe -> unsafe lock order is the mutex_unlock(pool->manager_arb) in manage_workers() with pool->lock held. Unlocking mutex while holding an irq spinlock was never safe and this problem has been around forever but it never got noticed because the only time the mutex is usually trylocked while holding irqlock making actual failures very unlikely and lockdep annotation missed the condition until the recent b9c16a0 ("locking/mutex: Fix lockdep_assert_held() fail"). Using mutex for pool->manager_arb has always been a bit of stretch. It primarily is an mechanism to arbitrate managership between workers which can easily be done with a pool flag. The only reason it became a mutex is that pool destruction path wants to exclude parallel managing operations. This patch replaces the mutex with a new pool flag POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE and make the destruction path wait for the current manager on a wait queue. v2: Drop unnecessary flag clearing before pool destruction as suggested by Boqun. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]> Reported-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Cc: Boqun Feng <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
|
@nullr0ute Is this issue still reproducible with Fedora 29? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Seeing a new crash regression in the 4.13 kernel on both ARMv7 and aarch64 when running GNOME.
I've included both dumps for reference even though they're similar as aarch64 also includes other bits.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: