-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Optimization #558
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Optimization #558
Conversation
Hi @FelixProgrammer! Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel! Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch. Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process. Here's what to do:
How do I format my contribution?The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations. Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea. You can create patches with Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary. Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with. Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel. Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this. Who do I send my contribution to?The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes. If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the
Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches. It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.) How do I send my contribution?Use For more information about using How do I get help if I'm stuck?Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed. Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine. If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:
If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers! I sent my patch - now what?You wait. You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at. Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:
Further information
Happy hacking! This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot. |
cool |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no
very cool |
I think this will add at least 40 horsepower to the code. It's been OPTIMIZED! |
rust: add an abstraction for devices.
In the process of adding lockdep annotation for drm GPU scheduler's job_run() to detect potential deadlock against shrinker/reclaim, I hit this lockdep splat: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ torvalds#558 Tainted: G W ------------------------------------------------------ ring0/125 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffd6d6ce0f28 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 but task is already holding lock: ffffff8087239208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #4 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #3 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}: __dma_fence_might_wait+0x74/0xc0 dma_resv_lockdep+0x1f4/0x2f4 do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #2 (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}: fs_reclaim_acquire+0x80/0xa8 slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc __kmalloc+0xd8/0x100 topology_parse_cpu_capacity+0x8c/0x178 get_cpu_for_node+0x88/0xc4 parse_cluster+0x1b0/0x28c parse_cluster+0x8c/0x28c init_cpu_topology+0x168/0x188 smp_prepare_cpus+0x24/0xf8 kernel_init_freeable+0x18c/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x3c/0x48 fs_reclaim_acquire+0x54/0xa8 slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc kmalloc_trace+0x50/0xa8 dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate+0x38/0x100 __dev_pm_qos_add_request+0xb0/0x1e8 dev_pm_qos_add_request+0x58/0x80 dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit+0x60/0x13c register_cpu+0x12c/0x130 topology_init+0xac/0xbc do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #0 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060 lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8 __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70 msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0 msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: dev_pm_qos_mtx --> dma_fence_map --> &gpu->active_lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&gpu->active_lock); lock(dma_fence_map); lock(&gpu->active_lock); lock(dev_pm_qos_mtx); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by ring0/123: #0: ffffff8087251170 (&gpu->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_job_run+0x64/0x150 #1: ffffffd00b0e57e8 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}, at: msm_job_run+0x68/0x150 #2: ffffff8087251208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 stack backtrace: CPU: 6 PID: 123 Comm: ring0 Not tainted 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ torvalds#559 Hardware name: Google Lazor (rev1 - 2) with LTE (DT) Call trace: dump_backtrace.part.0+0xb4/0xf8 show_stack+0x20/0x38 dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xd0 dump_stack+0x18/0x34 print_circular_bug+0x1b4/0x1f0 check_noncircular+0x78/0xac __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060 lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8 __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70 msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0 msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 The issue is that dev_pm_qos_mtx is held in the runpm suspend/resume (or freq change) path, but it is also held across allocations that could recurse into shrinker. Solve this by changing dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate() into a function that can be called unconditionally before the device qos object is needed and before aquiring dev_pm_qos_mtx. This way the allocations can be done without holding the mutex. In the case that we raced with another thread to allocate the qos object, detect this *after* acquiring the dev_pm_qos_mtx and simply free the redundant allocations. Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <[email protected]>
In the process of adding lockdep annotation for drm GPU scheduler's job_run() to detect potential deadlock against shrinker/reclaim, I hit this lockdep splat: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ torvalds#558 Tainted: G W ------------------------------------------------------ ring0/125 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffd6d6ce0f28 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 but task is already holding lock: ffffff8087239208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #4 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #3 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}: __dma_fence_might_wait+0x74/0xc0 dma_resv_lockdep+0x1f4/0x2f4 do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #2 (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}: fs_reclaim_acquire+0x80/0xa8 slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc __kmalloc+0xd8/0x100 topology_parse_cpu_capacity+0x8c/0x178 get_cpu_for_node+0x88/0xc4 parse_cluster+0x1b0/0x28c parse_cluster+0x8c/0x28c init_cpu_topology+0x168/0x188 smp_prepare_cpus+0x24/0xf8 kernel_init_freeable+0x18c/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x3c/0x48 fs_reclaim_acquire+0x54/0xa8 slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc kmalloc_trace+0x50/0xa8 dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate+0x38/0x100 __dev_pm_qos_add_request+0xb0/0x1e8 dev_pm_qos_add_request+0x58/0x80 dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit+0x60/0x13c register_cpu+0x12c/0x130 topology_init+0xac/0xbc do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #0 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060 lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8 __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70 msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0 msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: dev_pm_qos_mtx --> dma_fence_map --> &gpu->active_lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&gpu->active_lock); lock(dma_fence_map); lock(&gpu->active_lock); lock(dev_pm_qos_mtx); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by ring0/123: #0: ffffff8087251170 (&gpu->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_job_run+0x64/0x150 #1: ffffffd00b0e57e8 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}, at: msm_job_run+0x68/0x150 #2: ffffff8087251208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 stack backtrace: CPU: 6 PID: 123 Comm: ring0 Not tainted 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ torvalds#559 Hardware name: Google Lazor (rev1 - 2) with LTE (DT) Call trace: dump_backtrace.part.0+0xb4/0xf8 show_stack+0x20/0x38 dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xd0 dump_stack+0x18/0x34 print_circular_bug+0x1b4/0x1f0 check_noncircular+0x78/0xac __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060 lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8 __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70 msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0 msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 The issue is that dev_pm_qos_mtx is held in the runpm suspend/resume (or freq change) path, but it is also held across allocations that could recurse into shrinker. Solve this by changing dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate() into a function that can be called unconditionally before the device qos object is needed and before aquiring dev_pm_qos_mtx. This way the allocations can be done without holding the mutex. In the case that we raced with another thread to allocate the qos object, detect this *after* acquiring the dev_pm_qos_mtx and simply free the redundant allocations. Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <[email protected]>
In the process of adding lockdep annotation for drm GPU scheduler's job_run() to detect potential deadlock against shrinker/reclaim, I hit this lockdep splat: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ torvalds#558 Tainted: G W ------------------------------------------------------ ring0/125 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffd6d6ce0f28 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 but task is already holding lock: ffffff8087239208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #4 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #3 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}: __dma_fence_might_wait+0x74/0xc0 dma_resv_lockdep+0x1f4/0x2f4 do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #2 (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}: fs_reclaim_acquire+0x80/0xa8 slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc __kmalloc+0xd8/0x100 topology_parse_cpu_capacity+0x8c/0x178 get_cpu_for_node+0x88/0xc4 parse_cluster+0x1b0/0x28c parse_cluster+0x8c/0x28c init_cpu_topology+0x168/0x188 smp_prepare_cpus+0x24/0xf8 kernel_init_freeable+0x18c/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x3c/0x48 fs_reclaim_acquire+0x54/0xa8 slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc kmalloc_trace+0x50/0xa8 dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate+0x38/0x100 __dev_pm_qos_add_request+0xb0/0x1e8 dev_pm_qos_add_request+0x58/0x80 dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit+0x60/0x13c register_cpu+0x12c/0x130 topology_init+0xac/0xbc do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #0 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060 lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8 __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70 msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0 msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: dev_pm_qos_mtx --> dma_fence_map --> &gpu->active_lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&gpu->active_lock); lock(dma_fence_map); lock(&gpu->active_lock); lock(dev_pm_qos_mtx); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by ring0/123: #0: ffffff8087251170 (&gpu->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_job_run+0x64/0x150 #1: ffffffd00b0e57e8 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}, at: msm_job_run+0x68/0x150 #2: ffffff8087251208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 stack backtrace: CPU: 6 PID: 123 Comm: ring0 Not tainted 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ torvalds#559 Hardware name: Google Lazor (rev1 - 2) with LTE (DT) Call trace: dump_backtrace.part.0+0xb4/0xf8 show_stack+0x20/0x38 dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xd0 dump_stack+0x18/0x34 print_circular_bug+0x1b4/0x1f0 check_noncircular+0x78/0xac __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060 lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8 __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70 msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0 msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 The issue is that dev_pm_qos_mtx is held in the runpm suspend/resume (or freq change) path, but it is also held across allocations that could recurse into shrinker. Solve this by changing dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate() into a function that can be called unconditionally before the device qos object is needed and before aquiring dev_pm_qos_mtx. This way the allocations can be done without holding the mutex. In the case that we raced with another thread to allocate the qos object, detect this *after* acquiring the dev_pm_qos_mtx and simply free the redundant allocations. Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <[email protected]>
In the process of adding lockdep annotation for drm GPU scheduler's job_run() to detect potential deadlock against shrinker/reclaim, I hit this lockdep splat: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ torvalds#558 Tainted: G W ------------------------------------------------------ ring0/125 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffd6d6ce0f28 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 but task is already holding lock: ffffff8087239208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #4 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #3 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}: __dma_fence_might_wait+0x74/0xc0 dma_resv_lockdep+0x1f4/0x2f4 do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #2 (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}: fs_reclaim_acquire+0x80/0xa8 slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc __kmalloc+0xd8/0x100 topology_parse_cpu_capacity+0x8c/0x178 get_cpu_for_node+0x88/0xc4 parse_cluster+0x1b0/0x28c parse_cluster+0x8c/0x28c init_cpu_topology+0x168/0x188 smp_prepare_cpus+0x24/0xf8 kernel_init_freeable+0x18c/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x3c/0x48 fs_reclaim_acquire+0x54/0xa8 slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc kmalloc_trace+0x50/0xa8 dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate+0x38/0x100 __dev_pm_qos_add_request+0xb0/0x1e8 dev_pm_qos_add_request+0x58/0x80 dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit+0x60/0x13c register_cpu+0x12c/0x130 topology_init+0xac/0xbc do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c kernel_init+0x30/0x134 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 -> #0 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060 lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8 __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70 msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0 msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: dev_pm_qos_mtx --> dma_fence_map --> &gpu->active_lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&gpu->active_lock); lock(dma_fence_map); lock(&gpu->active_lock); lock(dev_pm_qos_mtx); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by ring0/123: #0: ffffff8087251170 (&gpu->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_job_run+0x64/0x150 #1: ffffffd00b0e57e8 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}, at: msm_job_run+0x68/0x150 #2: ffffff8087251208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178 stack backtrace: CPU: 6 PID: 123 Comm: ring0 Not tainted 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ torvalds#559 Hardware name: Google Lazor (rev1 - 2) with LTE (DT) Call trace: dump_backtrace.part.0+0xb4/0xf8 show_stack+0x20/0x38 dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xd0 dump_stack+0x18/0x34 print_circular_bug+0x1b4/0x1f0 check_noncircular+0x78/0xac __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060 lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8 __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8 mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44 dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68 msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70 msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0 msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178 msm_job_run+0x78/0x150 drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370 kthread+0xf0/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 The issue is that dev_pm_qos_mtx is held in the runpm suspend/resume (or freq change) path, but it is also held across allocations that could recurse into shrinker. Solve this by changing dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate() into a function that can be called unconditionally before the device qos object is needed and before aquiring dev_pm_qos_mtx. This way the allocations can be done without holding the mutex. In the case that we raced with another thread to allocate the qos object, detect this *after* acquiring the dev_pm_qos_mtx and simply free the redundant allocations. Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <[email protected]>
No description provided.