Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:45:45 +0200 | From | Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <> | Subject | Re: Crash with 6.6.0-rc1-rt1 and several i915 locking call traces with v6.5.2-rt8 and gnome-shell on Alder Lake laptop |
| |
On 2023-09-29 04:43:32 [-0400], John B. Wyatt IV wrote: > For stock (non-rt) I do not see it with 6.6-rc2. This was compiled > with the Stream 9 debug config. > > I was able to reproduce similar call traces once I tested again > with 6.6-rc3-rt5 at [4] and [5]. > > What would be the best way to determine if the warning is wrongly > triggered?
I looked at the traces in this email and they originate from a might_sleep() in guc_context_set_prio(). The reason is that they check at the atomic/interrupt state to figure out if they can sleep or not. Both checks don't work on RT as intended and the former has a not to not be used in drivers…
The snippet below should cure this. Could you test, please.
Sebastian
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h index 8dc291ff00935..5b8d084c9c58c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h @@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ static inline int intel_guc_send_busy_loop(struct intel_guc *guc, { int err; unsigned int sleep_period_ms = 1; - bool not_atomic = !in_atomic() && !irqs_disabled(); + bool not_atomic = !in_atomic() && !irqs_disabled() && !rcu_preempt_depth(); /* * FIXME: Have caller pass in if we are in an atomic context to avoid
| |