On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 08:33:05PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> On 2/23/26 20:20, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 08:13:34PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> >> On 2/23/26 18:25, Matthew Brost wrote:
> >>> The i915_active selftest no longer builds after the dma-fence locking
> >>> rework because it directly accessed the fence’s spinlock. The helper
> >>> dma_fence_spinlock() must now be used to obtain the spinlock. Update the
> >>> selftest to use dma_fence_spinlock() accordingly.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 1f32f310a13c ("dma-buf: inline spinlock for fence protection v5")
> >>> Cc: Christian König <[email protected]>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Christian König <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the patch and sorry for the noise, just one more question below.
> >>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_active.c | 4 ++--
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_active.c
> >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_active.c
> >>> index 52345073b409..9fea2fabeac4 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_active.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_active.c
> >>> @@ -323,9 +323,9 @@ static void active_flush(struct i915_active *ref,
> >>> if (!fence)
> >>> return;
> >>>
> >>> - spin_lock_irq(fence->lock);
> >>> + spin_lock_irq(dma_fence_spinlock(fence));
> >>
> >> Is it guaranteed that this is called from interrupt context? E.g. why is
> >> spin_lock_irq() instead of spin_lock_irqsafe() used here?
> >>
> >
> > Idk, this i915 stuff I’ve long intentionally tried to forget to avoid
> > nightmares.
> >
> >> That's basically the reason why I missed this.
> >>
> >
> > Also, please include the intel-xe list for CI — that will catch issues as
> > well.
> >
> > We’re making it a bit further now, but we’re hitting a lockdep splat [1].
>
> ^^ that actually looks like a bug in dma_fence_chain_enable_signaling() which
> was there before the patch set and now just get bubbled up because lockdep
> can finally check on it.
>
> Just reverting "dma-buf: use inline lock for the dma-fence-chain" should
> silence that again, but it is clearly not the right fix.
>
Ah, ok. Well let's just figure this out properly.
> > I can dig into it now; hopefully it’s an easy fix. If not, I may ask for
> > a revert. Give me an hour or so to look into it and I’ll report back.
> > But again, please include the intel-xe list for CI on risky DRM common
> > or dma-buf patches — if the patches apply to drm-tip, CI will run. You
> > should have permission to trigger this; I believe all AMD emails do.
>
> I did that on an older version of the patch set but never got a report back.
> My assumption was that it's working but could be that this actually never ran.
>
Got a link? I working on recreating this now on my dev box. Any hints to
speed up verifying a fix would be helpful.
Matt
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > [1]
> > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/intel-xe/xe-pw-161999v1/bat-ptl-1/igt@[email protected]
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Christian.
> >>
> >>> __list_del_entry(&active->cb.node);
> >>> - spin_unlock_irq(fence->lock); /* serialise with fence->cb_list */
> >>> + spin_unlock_irq(dma_fence_spinlock(fence)); /* serialise with
> >>> fence->cb_list */
> >>> atomic_dec(&ref->count);
> >>>
> >>> GEM_BUG_ON(!test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, &fence->flags));
> >>
>
