You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
[ Upstream commit 070e64d ]
Devices that make up DPU, i.e. graphics card, request their interrupts
from this "virtual" interrupt chip. The interrupt chip builds upon a GIC
SPI interrupt that raises high when any of the interrupts in the DPU's
irq status register are triggered. From the kernel's perspective this is
a chained irq chip, so requesting a flow handler for the GIC SPI and
then calling generic IRQ handling code from that irq handler is not
completely proper. It's better to convert this to a chained irq so that
the GIC SPI irq doesn't appear in /proc/interrupts, can't have CPU
affinity changed, and won't be accounted for with irq stats. Doing this
also silences a recursive lockdep warning because we can specify a
different lock class for the chained interrupts, silencing a warning
that is easy to see with 'threadirqs' on the kernel commandline.
WARNING: inconsistent lock state
4.19.10 #76 Tainted: G W
--------------------------------
inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage.
irq/40-dpu_mdss/203 [HC0[0]:SC0[2]:HE1:SE0] takes:
0000000053ea9021 (&irq_desc_lock_class){?.-.}, at: handle_level_irq+0x34/0x26c
{IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at:
lock_acquire+0x244/0x360
_raw_spin_lock+0x64/0xa0
handle_fasteoi_irq+0x54/0x2ec
generic_handle_irq+0x44/0x5c
__handle_domain_irq+0x9c/0x11c
gic_handle_irq+0x208/0x260
el1_irq+0xb4/0x130
arch_cpu_idle+0x178/0x3cc
default_idle_call+0x3c/0x54
do_idle+0x1a8/0x3dc
cpu_startup_entry+0x24/0x28
rest_init+0x240/0x270
start_kernel+0x5a8/0x6bc
irq event stamp: 18
hardirqs last enabled at (17): [<ffffff9042385e80>] _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x40/0xc0
hardirqs last disabled at (16): [<ffffff904237a1f4>] __schedule+0x20c/0x1bbc
softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffff9040f318d0>] copy_process+0xb50/0x3964
softirqs last disabled at (18): [<ffffff9041036364>] local_bh_disable+0x8/0x20
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
<Interrupt>
lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
*** DEADLOCK ***
no locks held by irq/40-dpu_mdss/203.
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 203 Comm: irq/40-dpu_mdss Tainted: G W 4.19.10 #76
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0x0/0x2f8
show_stack+0x20/0x2c
__dump_stack+0x20/0x28
dump_stack+0xcc/0x10c
mark_lock+0xbe0/0xe24
__lock_acquire+0x4cc/0x2708
lock_acquire+0x244/0x360
_raw_spin_lock+0x64/0xa0
handle_level_irq+0x34/0x26c
generic_handle_irq+0x44/0x5c
dpu_mdss_irq+0x64/0xec
irq_forced_thread_fn+0x58/0x9c
irq_thread+0x120/0x1dc
kthread+0x248/0x260
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
------------[ cut here ]------------
irq 169 handler irq_default_primary_handler+0x0/0x18 enabled interrupts
Cc: Sean Paul <[email protected]>
Cc: Jordan Crouse <[email protected]>
Cc: Jayant Shekhar <[email protected]>
Cc: Rajesh Yadav <[email protected]>
Cc: Jeykumar Sankaran <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sean Paul <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
0 commit comments