On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 05:36:28PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Aside: Could/should we take some fake lockdep locks around these
> callbacks, since not all drivers call them from a hardirq context? Just to
> validate that everyone follows the contract.
What I typically do is use
On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:14:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 09:56:57PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 08:57:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Is what it says I suppose. Now I don't know enough about that i915 code
> > > to say if that
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 09:56:57PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 08:57:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Is what it says I suppose. Now I don't know enough about that i915 code
> > to say if that breadcrumbs_signal thread can ever trigger a fault or
> > not. I got
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 08:57:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 03:58:28PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > [ 85.069417] gem_exec_captur/2810 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 85.069419] ((completion)>parked){+.+.}, at: []
> > kthread_park+0x3d/0x50
> > [
