On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:08:33AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > On 5/29/24 8:36 AM, Saarinen, Jani wrote: > > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Saarinen, Jani > >> Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2024 16.49 > >> To: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>; Nirmal Patel > >> <[email protected]>; Deak, Imre <[email protected]>; Jiang, > >> Dave <[email protected]> > >> Cc: 李, 星辉 <[email protected]>; Jonathan Derrick > >> <[email protected]>; Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>; linux- > >> [email protected]; [email protected] > >> Subject: RE: Lockdep annotation introduced warn in VMD driver > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Intel-gfx <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > >>> Jani > >>> Nikula > >>> Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2024 11.06 > >>> To: Nirmal Patel <[email protected]>; Deak, Imre > >>> <[email protected]> > >>> Cc: Jiang, Dave <[email protected]>; 李, 星辉 <[email protected]>; > >>> Jonathan Derrick <[email protected]>; Bjorn Helgaas > >>> <[email protected]>; [email protected]; intel- > >>> [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: Lockdep annotation introduced warn in VMD driver > >>> > >>> On Tue, 28 May 2024, Nirmal Patel <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 15:36:54 +0300 > >>>> Imre Deak <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> commit 7e89efc6e9e402839643cb297bab14055c547f07 > >>>>> Author: Dave Jiang <[email protected]> > >>>>> Date: Thu May 2 09:57:31 2024 -0700 > >>>>> > >>>>> PCI: Lock upstream bridge for pci_reset_function() > >>>>> > >>>>> introduced the WARN below in the VMD driver, see [1] for the full log. > >>>>> Not sure if the annotation is incorrect or the VMD driver is missing > >>>>> the lock, CC'ing VMD folks. > >>>>> > >>>>> --Imre > >>>> Can you please provide repro steps and some background on the setup? > >>> > >>> Hardware name: Intel Corporation Alder Lake Client Platform/AlderLake-P > >>> LP5 RVP. > >>> > >>> Kconfig: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_14842/kconfig.txt > >>> > >>> Just booting with the above commit is enough. > >> It seems fix do not fix as seen on > >> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/134183/ > >> => https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_134183v1/index.html? > >> See those red not where both are red stil and also both dmesg (boot.log) > >> look > >> still identical. > >> So eg: > >> base build: > >> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_14846/bat-dg2-13/boot0.txt > >> pw patches: > >> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_134183v1/bat-dg2-13/boot0.txt > >> > >> Dave, thoughts? > > Also Imre tried with 2 PCI patches together > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/134193/ > > And still not good for those 4 systems (mtlp-9, bat-dg2-13/14 and > > bat-adlp-11) : > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_134193v1/index.html? > > Dave, Dan, thoughts? > > Can you provide the dmesg from the failure system with the 2 patches applied > please?
For the above 4 machines, mtlp-9 not having the originally reported WARN (at pci.c:4886) only some other lockdep issue, while the other 3 machines having both the originally reported one and the other lockdep issue: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_134193v1/bat-mtlp-9/boot0.txt https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_134193v1/bat-dg2-13/boot0.txt https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_134193v1/bat-dg2-14/boot0.txt https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_134193v1/bat-adlp-11/boot0.txt
