On 2012.12.19 at 14:57 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 18-12-12 17:12, Markus Trippelsdorf schreef: > > With your supposed debugging BUG_ONs added I still get: > > > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: WARNING: at include/linux/kref.h:42 > > radeon_fence_ref+0x2c/0x40() > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: Hardware name: System Product Name > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: Pid: 157, comm: X Not tainted > > 3.7.0-rc7-00520-g85b144f-dirty #174 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: Call Trace: > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff81058c84>] ? > > warn_slowpath_common+0x74/0xb0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff8129273c>] ? radeon_fence_ref+0x2c/0x40 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff8125e95c>] ? > > ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock+0x18c/0x2d0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff8125f17c>] ? > > ttm_mem_evict_first+0x1dc/0x2a0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff81264452>] ? > > ttm_bo_man_get_node+0x62/0xb0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff8125f4ce>] ? > > ttm_bo_mem_space+0x28e/0x340 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff8125fb0c>] ? > > ttm_bo_move_buffer+0xfc/0x170 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff810de172>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0xb2/0xc0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff8125fc15>] ? ttm_bo_validate+0x95/0x110 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff8125ff7c>] ? ttm_bo_init+0x2ec/0x3b0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff8129419a>] ? > > radeon_bo_create+0x18a/0x200 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff81293e80>] ? > > radeon_bo_clear_va+0x40/0x40 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff812a5342>] ? > > radeon_gem_object_create+0x92/0x160 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff812a575c>] ? > > radeon_gem_create_ioctl+0x6c/0x150 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff812a529f>] ? > > radeon_gem_object_free+0x2f/0x40 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff81246b60>] ? drm_ioctl+0x420/0x4f0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff812a56f0>] ? > > radeon_gem_pwrite_ioctl+0x20/0x20 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff810f53a4>] ? do_vfs_ioctl+0x2e4/0x4e0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff810e5588>] ? vfs_read+0x118/0x160 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff810f55ec>] ? sys_ioctl+0x4c/0xa0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff810e5851>] ? sys_read+0x51/0xa0 > > Dec 18 17:01:15 x4 kernel: [<ffffffff814b0612>] ? > > system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > so the kref to fence is null here. This should be impossible and > indicates a bug in refcounting somewhere, or possibly memory > corruption. > > Lets first look where things could go wrong.. > > sync_obj member requires fence_lock to be taken, but radeon code in > general doesn't do that, hm.. > > I think radeon_cs_sync_rings needs to take fence_lock during the > iteration, then taking on a refcount to the fence, and > radeon_crtc_page_flip and radeon_move_blit are lacking refcount on > fence_lock as well. > > But that would probably still not explain why it crashes in > radeon_vm_bo_invalidate shortly after, so it seems just as likely that > it's operating on freed memory there or something. > > But none of the code touches refcounting for that bo, and I really > don't see how I messed up anything there. > > I seem to be able to reproduce it if I add a hack though, can you test > if you get the exact same issues if you apply this patch?
Your patch doesn't apply unfortunately: markus@x4 linux % patch -p1 --dry-run < ~/maarten.patch checking file drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 512 with fuzz 1. Hunk #6 FAILED at 814. 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED markus@x4 linux % git describe v3.7-10833-g752451f markus@x4 linux % -- Markus _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
