Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:26 AM Byungchul Park wrote: > > On 3/15/2018 9:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:31:57AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> Is there any progress on getting cross-release enabled again? > > > > Not yet, I'm still fighting the meltdown/spectre

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 12:26 AM Byungchul Park wrote: > > On 3/15/2018 9:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:31:57AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> Is there any progress on getting cross-release enabled again? > > > > Not yet, I'm still fighting the meltdown/spectre

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On 3/15/2018 9:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:31:57AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: Is there any progress on getting cross-release enabled again? Not yet, I'm still fighting the meltdown/spectre induced backlog. We'll get to it eventually. Please let me know when you

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On 3/15/2018 9:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:31:57AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: Is there any progress on getting cross-release enabled again? Not yet, I'm still fighting the meltdown/spectre induced backlog. We'll get to it eventually. Please let me know when you

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:31:57AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Is there any progress on getting cross-release enabled again? Not yet, I'm still fighting the meltdown/spectre induced backlog. We'll get to it eventually.

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:31:57AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Is there any progress on getting cross-release enabled again? Not yet, I'm still fighting the meltdown/spectre induced backlog. We'll get to it eventually.

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Byungchul Park wrote: > On 12/19/2017 6:59 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:42:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: This

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Byungchul Park wrote: > On 12/19/2017 6:59 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:42:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: This didn't seem to have made it into -rc4.

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On 12/19/2017 6:59 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:42:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: This didn't seem to have made it into -rc4. Anything needed to get it going? Do you actually see the problem

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On 12/19/2017 6:59 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:42:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: This didn't seem to have made it into -rc4. Anything needed to get it going? Do you actually see the problem in -rc4? Because

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:42:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > This didn't seem to have made it into -rc4. Anything needed to get it > > going? > > Do you actually see the problem in -rc4? > > Because we ended up

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:42:13AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > This didn't seem to have made it into -rc4. Anything needed to get it > > going? > > Do you actually see the problem in -rc4? > > Because we ended up removing the

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > This didn't seem to have made it into -rc4. Anything needed to get it > going? Do you actually see the problem in -rc4? Because we ended up removing the cross-release checking due to other developers complaining. It

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:11 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > This didn't seem to have made it into -rc4. Anything needed to get it > going? Do you actually see the problem in -rc4? Because we ended up removing the cross-release checking due to other developers complaining. It seemed to need a lot

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:19:28AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:54:19AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > > > cross-release stuff

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 10:19:28AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:54:19AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > > > cross-release stuff

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:54:19AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > > cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases > > they are because totally

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:54:19AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > > cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases > > they are because totally

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases > they are because totally independent uses of kthread are mixed up by > lockdep into the same

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases > they are because totally independent uses of kthread are mixed up by > lockdep into the same

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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 > > [

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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 > > [

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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 > [ 85.069426] >but task is already holding lock: > [ 85.069428]

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

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 > [ 85.069426] >but task is already holding lock: > [ 85.069428]

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 01:22:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > > cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases > > they are because totally

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 01:22:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > > cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases > > they are because totally

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases > they are because totally independent uses of kthread are mixed up by > lockdep into the same

Re: [PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:08:49AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new > cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases > they are because totally independent uses of kthread are mixed up by > lockdep into the same

[PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases they are because totally independent uses of kthread are mixed up by lockdep into the same locking class, creating artificial deadlocks. Fix this by converting

[PATCH] kthread: finer-grained lockdep/cross-release completion

Since -rc1 we're hitting a bunch of lockdep splats using the new cross-release stuff around the 2 kthread completions. In all cases they are because totally independent uses of kthread are mixed up by lockdep into the same locking class, creating artificial deadlocks. Fix this by converting