similar to: nouveau lockdep splat on init

Add a flag NVOBJ_FLAG_CREAT_EXCL, which will make sure that only 1 engctx will be created. This removes the need of having multiple Fixes the following lockdep splat: ============================================= [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 3.8.0-rc6-ninja+ #1 Not tainted --------------------------------------------- modprobe/585 is trying to acquire lock:

>From recent additional locking in nouveau, it looks like we see recursive lock acquisition in 3.8-rc6: nouveau [ DEVICE][0000:01:00.0] BOOT0 : 0x0e7150a2 nouveau [ DEVICE][0000:01:00.0] Chipset: GK107 (NVE7) nouveau [ DEVICE][0000:01:00.0] Family : NVE0 nouveau [ VBIOS][0000:01:00.0] checking PRAMIN for image... nouveau [ VBIOS][0000:01:00.0] ... appears to be valid nouveau [

Dropping Tegra ML, it's not the place where Nouveau mails should go. Adding Nouveau ML and Maarten, who probably knows Lockdep+Nouveau best. Am Montag, den 04.03.2013, 22:16 +0100 schrieb Borislav Petkov: > New -rc1, so let the stabilization games begin. > > I see the following on rc1, let me know if you need more info. > > > [ 0.633617]

The refcount was not protected by the vm lock, fix this.. ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 2008 at drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/core/mm.c:242 nouveau_mm_fini+0x4f/0x56 [nouveau]() Modules linked in: adt7475 ebtable_nat ebtables nouveau ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_nat nf_nat_ipv4 nf_nat xt_CHECKSUM iptable_mangle bridge stp llc snd_hda_codec_hdmi kvm_intel ttm kvm

235c235 < input :name => ''password'', :type => ''text''; br --- > input :name => ''password'', :type => ''password''; br sorry for all the noise in the list :( -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, While trying PRIME, I got a lockdep warning after exiting glxgears. Is it harmful? The command was: DRI_PRIME=1 glxgears Offload provider is a GT425M (NVC0), output sink is an Intel i5-460M. Kind regards, Peter dmesg: ============================================= [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 3.15.0-rc8-custom-00058-gd2cfd31 #1 Tainted: G O

Hi! as highlevel languages (like opencl) support operations with a vector on one side and a scalar on the other side (e.g. vector * scalar) it would be convenient if llvm ir would have a splat instruction that takes a scalar and produces a vector with all elements filled with the scalar. i assume that i'm not the first one who has this idea so what was the reason not to include such an

Hi All, First of all, I am not native English speaker. While reading BUILD_VECTOR related code, for example, PPCTargetLowering::LowerBUILD_VECTOR, I see "splat" here and there. Could someone explain what it is (does splat mean the same thing across the whole code base)? Besides, from my English dictionary, I don't know why we call such thing as "splat"... :p Regards,

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 05:39:11PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Greetings, > > Running a kernel with ATOMIC_SLEEP enabled in one of my VMs, I met the > splat below. I tracked it back to 4.14-stable, and bisected it there. Why does your virtual machine use a drm driver? Ah, it's a driver for virtual gpu, nice. And if you revert that patch, does everything work again? > #

On Sun, 2018-06-17 at 11:36 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > And if you revert that patch, does everything work again? Yes. -Mike

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2018-06-17 at 11:36 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > And if you revert that patch, does everything work again? > > Yes. Great, Dave, care to revert this in 4.18 so I can queue up that revert in older kernels as well? thanks, greg k-h

On 17 June 2018 at 21:02, Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >> On Sun, 2018-06-17 at 11:36 +0200, Greg KH wrote: >> > >> > And if you revert that patch, does everything work again? >> >> Yes. > > Great, Dave, care to revert this in 4.18 so I can queue up that revert

On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 05:39:11PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Greetings, > > Running a kernel with ATOMIC_SLEEP enabled in one of my VMs, I met the > splat below. I tracked it back to 4.14-stable, and bisected it there. Why does your virtual machine use a drm driver? Ah, it's a driver for virtual gpu, nice. And if you revert that patch, does everything work again? > #

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sun, 2018-06-17 at 11:36 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > > And if you revert that patch, does everything work again? > > Yes. Great, Dave, care to revert this in 4.18 so I can queue up that revert in older kernels as well? thanks, greg k-h

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67277 Priority: medium Bug ID: 67277 Assignee: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org Summary: Lockdep splat on kernel 3.10.0 QA Contact: xorg-team at lists.x.org Severity: normal Classification: Unclassified OS: Linux (All) Reporter: peter at hurleysoftware.com

I get these kernel error messages too on 4.15-rc2 (and rc1) with my MSI GeForce 210. The messages appear to be benign as X Window and the X nouveau driver seem to work fine. [ 8.069341] fb: switching to nouveaufb from VESA VGA [ 8.089848] Console: switching to colour dummy device 80x25 [ 8.089983] nouveau 0000:0f:00.0: NVIDIA GT218 (0a8280b1) [ 8.104713] snd_hda_codec_realtek

Hi, We have a function in IRBuilder.h Value *CreateVectorSplat(unsigned NumElts, Value *V, const Twine &Name = "") { .. } This function creates 2 instructions - "insertelement" and "shuffle" with all-zero mask. Now I want to add Value *getSplatValue(Value *Val). This function will try to recognize the pattern - insertelement+shuffle and return the splat value

Hi guys! I'm getting the following warn on 4.15-rc1, on GTX 560 Ti: [ 9.430433] nouveau 0000:01:00.0: NVIDIA GF114 (0ce000a1) ... [ 9.585172] nouveau 0000:01:00.0: bios: version 70.24.2e.00.02 ... [ 9.772204] nouveau 0000:01:00.0: fb: 1024 MiB GDDR5 [ 9.777342] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 9.782106] refcount_t: increment on 0; use-after-free. [ 9.787522] WARNING:

I hit this while testing HMM with nouveau on linux-5.5-rc5. I'm not a lockdep expert but my understanding of this is that an invalidation callback could potentially call kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL) which could cause another invalidation and recursively deadlock. Looking at the drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/ layer, I do see a number of places where GFP_KERNEL is used for allocations and I don't see

Just spitballing... why not have a splat construct straight through LLVM? It would make the IR more readable, opposed to the insert+shuffle method. On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 19:06 Amara Emerson via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +1 to a new node, we’d very likely do the same thing for GlobalISel and > move to a canonical spat representation for all targets. > >