Commit 2e1e5c55 authored by Chris Wilson's avatar Chris Wilson

drm/i915: Avoid reclaim taints from runtime-pm debug

As intel_runtime_pm_get/_put may be called from any blockable context,
we need to avoid allowing reclaim from our mallocs, as we need to
avoid tainting any mutexes held by the callers (as they may themselves
not allow for allocations as they are taken in the shrinker).

<4> [435.339331] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
<4> [435.339364] 5.1.0-rc4-CI-Trybot_4116+ #1 Tainted: G     U
<4> [435.339395] ------------------------------------------------------
<4> [435.339426] gem_caching/1334 is trying to acquire lock:
<4> [435.339456] 000000004505c39b (wakeref#3){+.+.}, at: intel_engine_pm_put+0x1b/0x40 [i915]
<4> [435.339788]
but task is already holding lock:
<4> [435.339819] 00000000ee77b4ed (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: fs_reclaim_acquire.part.24+0x0/0x30
<4> [435.339879]
which lock already depends on the new lock.

<4> [435.339918]
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
<4> [435.339952]
-> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}:
<4> [435.339998]        fs_reclaim_acquire.part.24+0x24/0x30
<4> [435.340035]        kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x2a/0x290
<4> [435.340311]        __print_intel_runtime_pm_wakeref+0x24/0x160 [i915]
<4> [435.340590]        untrack_intel_runtime_pm_wakeref+0x16e/0x1d0 [i915]
<4> [435.340869]        intel_runtime_pm_put_unchecked+0xd/0x30 [i915]
<4> [435.341147]        __intel_wakeref_put_once+0x22/0x40 [i915]
<4> [435.341508]        i915_request_retire+0x477/0xaf0 [i915]
<4> [435.341871]        ring_retire_requests+0x86/0x160 [i915]
<4> [435.342226]        i915_retire_requests+0x58/0xc0 [i915]
<4> [435.342576]        retire_work_handler+0x5b/0x70 [i915]
<4> [435.342615]        process_one_work+0x245/0x610
<4> [435.342646]        worker_thread+0x37/0x380
<4> [435.342679]        kthread+0x119/0x130
<4> [435.342714]        ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
<4> [435.342739]
-> #0 (wakeref#3){+.+.}:
<4> [435.342788]        lock_acquire+0xa6/0x1c0
<4> [435.342822]        __mutex_lock+0x8c/0x960
<4> [435.342853]        atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock+0x33/0x50
<4> [435.343151]        intel_engine_pm_put+0x1b/0x40 [i915]
<4> [435.343501]        i915_request_retire+0x477/0xaf0 [i915]
<4> [435.343851]        ring_retire_requests+0x86/0x160 [i915]
<4> [435.344202]        i915_retire_requests+0x58/0xc0 [i915]
<4> [435.344543]        i915_gem_shrink+0xd8/0x5b0 [i915]
<4> [435.344835]        i915_drop_caches_set+0x17b/0x250 [i915]
<4> [435.344877]        simple_attr_write+0xb0/0xd0
<4> [435.344911]        full_proxy_write+0x51/0x80
<4> [435.344943]        vfs_write+0xbd/0x1b0
<4> [435.344972]        ksys_write+0x55/0xe0
<4> [435.345002]        do_syscall_64+0x55/0x190
<4> [435.345040]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
Signed-off-by: default avatarChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: default avatarMika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190409174108.19396-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
parent 1863e302
......@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ static void cancel_intel_runtime_pm_wakeref(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
rpm->debug.count, atomic_read(&rpm->wakeref_count))) {
char *buf;
buf = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
buf = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
if (!buf)
return;
......@@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ __print_intel_runtime_pm_wakeref(struct drm_printer *p,
unsigned long i;
char *buf;
buf = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
buf = kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
if (!buf)
return;
......@@ -282,7 +282,9 @@ void print_intel_runtime_pm_wakeref(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
if (dbg.count <= alloc)
break;
s = krealloc(dbg.owners, dbg.count * sizeof(*s), GFP_KERNEL);
s = krealloc(dbg.owners,
dbg.count * sizeof(*s),
GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
if (!s)
goto out;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment