On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 04:28:42PM +0106, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2021-01-26, Qais Yousef <qais.you...@arm.com> wrote:
> > [67628.393550] =============================
> > [67628.393554] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
> > [67628.393557] 5.11.0-rc3-00019-g86be331946f7 #37 Not tainted
> > [67628.393560] -----------------------------
> > [67628.393563] sugov:0/192 is trying to lock:
> > [67628.393566] ffff000800b1d898 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}-{3:3}, at:
> > pl011_console_write+0x138/0x218
> > [67628.393581] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [67628.393584] context-{2:2}
> > [67628.393586] 4 locks held by sugov:0/192:
> > [67628.393589] #0: ffff0008059cb720
> > (&sg_policy->work_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: sugov_work+0x58/0x88
> > [67628.393603] #1: ffff800015446f20 (prepare_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
> > clk_prepare_lock+0x34/0xb0
> pl011_console_write() does:
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
> spin_lock(&uap->port.lock);
>
> This needs to be:
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&uap->port.lock, flags);
>
> Of course, it will be a trickier than that because of the
> @oops_in_progress madness. This bug has been around for quite a while.
Well yes, but that's not going to be fixing anything.
The problem is that sugov_work() is holding a raw_spin_lock, and you're
trying to acquire a spin_lock.
That's an invalid lock nesting.
