diff mbox

kernel-4.7 bug in Intel sound and/or ACPI

Message ID 576C042B.20507@codeaurora.org
State Not Applicable
Headers show

Commit Message

Sinan Kaya June 23, 2016, 3:45 p.m. UTC
On 6/23/2016 10:55 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 6/23/2016 10:12 AM, Wim Osterholt wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:54:39PM -0400, okaya@codeaurora.org wrote:
>>> On 2016-06-21 18:13, Wim Osterholt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 	pr_info("%s:%d irq = %d penalty = %d\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq,
>>>>> 		penalty);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This produced some 60 lines extra....
>>>
>>> Thanks, let's go back to 4.6 and add a very similar printf to every 
>>> single place where the array is modified and also right before the 
>>> enabled message.
>>>
>>
>> I don't get this right.
>> Assuming that you're still talking about the same file, I find a few
>> instances of 'enabled', most of them in if-statements and one where it might
>> be set, so it looks. However, that's already in a printk statement.
>> I don't know about arrays and even less where these are set. Even worse, I
>> don't know what to put in a 'similar' line if you don't mean 'exactly the
>> same'.
>> So please state file and line numbers and the line to be inserted.
>>
> 
> Sure, let me get a patch for you. I was hoping to do it yesterday. 
> I ran out of time. I typed the message from my phone. 
> 

Here it is

Comments

Bjorn Helgaas June 23, 2016, 4:21 p.m. UTC | #1
[+cc Alex, FYI]

This thread is about a regression that we'll want to fix before v4.7
releases.  It looks like it's related to these changes which were
merged via the ACPI tree:

  9e5ed6d1fb87 ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function
  1fcb6a813c4f ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove redundant code in acpi_irq_penalty_init()
  5c5087a55390 ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16
  103544d86976 ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements

If that turns out to be the case, it probably makes sense to merge the fix
via the ACPI tree as well.  But in the unlikely event the fix turns out to
be in PCI, Alex will probably have to merge it because I'll be on vacation.
So I'm adding Alex to the CC: list in case that happens.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:45:47AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 6/23/2016 10:55 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > On 6/23/2016 10:12 AM, Wim Osterholt wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:54:39PM -0400, okaya@codeaurora.org wrote:
> >>> On 2016-06-21 18:13, Wim Osterholt wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 	pr_info("%s:%d irq = %d penalty = %d\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq,
> >>>>> 		penalty);
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This produced some 60 lines extra....
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, let's go back to 4.6 and add a very similar printf to every 
> >>> single place where the array is modified and also right before the 
> >>> enabled message.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I don't get this right.
> >> Assuming that you're still talking about the same file, I find a few
> >> instances of 'enabled', most of them in if-statements and one where it might
> >> be set, so it looks. However, that's already in a printk statement.
> >> I don't know about arrays and even less where these are set. Even worse, I
> >> don't know what to put in a 'similar' line if you don't mean 'exactly the
> >> same'.
> >> So please state file and line numbers and the line to be inserted.
> >>
> > 
> > Sure, let me get a patch for you. I was hoping to do it yesterday. 
> > I ran out of time. I typed the message from my phone. 
> > 
> 
> Here it is
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sinan Kaya
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index ededa90..228b61f 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -487,15 +487,18 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
>  			    link->irq.possible_count;
>  
>  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
> -				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
> +				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ) {
>  					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
>  							 possible[i]] +=
>  					    penalty;
> +					pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, link->irq.possible[i], acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]);
> +				}
>  			}
>  
>  		} else if (link->irq.active) {
>  			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
>  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
> +			pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, link->irq.active, acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active]);
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> @@ -548,8 +551,11 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
>  		 */
>  		for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
>  			if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >
> -			    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]])
> +			    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]) {
> +				    pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[irq=%d](0x%x) vs. acpi_irq_penalty[%d](0x%x)\n",
> +					    __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq], link->irq.possible[i], acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]);
>  				irq = link->irq.possible[i];
> +			    }
>  		}
>  	}
>  	if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
> @@ -569,6 +575,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
>  		return -ENODEV;
>  	} else {
>  		acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, link->irq.active, acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active]);
>  		printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
>  		       acpi_device_name(link->device),
>  		       acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
> @@ -804,6 +811,8 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
>  		else
>  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE;
>  
> +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
> +
>  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
>  			break;
>  	}
> @@ -824,11 +833,16 @@ void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
>  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
>  		else
>  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> +
> +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
>  	}
>  }
>  
>  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
>  {
> +	if (irq >= 0 && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)))
> +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
> +
>  	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
>  			    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
>  }
> @@ -846,6 +860,8 @@ void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
>  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
>  		else
>  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> +
> +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
>  	}
>  }
>  

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Alex Williamson June 23, 2016, 5:05 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:21:58 -0500
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:

> [+cc Alex, FYI]
> 
> This thread is about a regression that we'll want to fix before v4.7
> releases.  It looks like it's related to these changes which were
> merged via the ACPI tree:
> 
>   9e5ed6d1fb87 ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove SCI penalize function
>   1fcb6a813c4f ACPI,PCI,IRQ: remove redundant code in acpi_irq_penalty_init()
>   5c5087a55390 ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce static IRQ array size to 16
>   103544d86976 ACPI,PCI,IRQ: reduce resource requirements
> 
> If that turns out to be the case, it probably makes sense to merge the fix
> via the ACPI tree as well.  But in the unlikely event the fix turns out to
> be in PCI, Alex will probably have to merge it because I'll be on vacation.
> So I'm adding Alex to the CC: list in case that happens.

Thanks, I'm watching it now.  I'll also encourage anyone posting other
fixes that they feel are relevant to v4.7 while Bjorn is away to please
proactively poke me.  Bjorn is pretty strict about only accepting
regression fixes after the merge window and I intend to do the same.
Thanks,

Alex
 
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:45:47AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > On 6/23/2016 10:55 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote:  
> > > On 6/23/2016 10:12 AM, Wim Osterholt wrote:  
> > >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:54:39PM -0400, okaya@codeaurora.org wrote:  
> > >>> On 2016-06-21 18:13, Wim Osterholt wrote:  
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 	pr_info("%s:%d irq = %d penalty = %d\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq,
> > >>>>> 		penalty);
> > >>>>>  
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This produced some 60 lines extra....  
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks, let's go back to 4.6 and add a very similar printf to every 
> > >>> single place where the array is modified and also right before the 
> > >>> enabled message.
> > >>>  
> > >>
> > >> I don't get this right.
> > >> Assuming that you're still talking about the same file, I find a few
> > >> instances of 'enabled', most of them in if-statements and one where it might
> > >> be set, so it looks. However, that's already in a printk statement.
> > >> I don't know about arrays and even less where these are set. Even worse, I
> > >> don't know what to put in a 'similar' line if you don't mean 'exactly the
> > >> same'.
> > >> So please state file and line numbers and the line to be inserted.
> > >>  
> > > 
> > > Sure, let me get a patch for you. I was hoping to do it yesterday. 
> > > I ran out of time. I typed the message from my phone. 
> > >   
> > 
> > Here it is
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Sinan Kaya
> > Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project  
> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> > index ededa90..228b61f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> > @@ -487,15 +487,18 @@ int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
> >  			    link->irq.possible_count;
> >  
> >  			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
> > -				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
> > +				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ) {
> >  					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
> >  							 possible[i]] +=
> >  					    penalty;
> > +					pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, link->irq.possible[i], acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]);
> > +				}
> >  			}
> >  
> >  		} else if (link->irq.active) {
> >  			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
> >  			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
> > +			pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, link->irq.active, acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active]);
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  
> > @@ -548,8 +551,11 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
> >  		 */
> >  		for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
> >  			if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >
> > -			    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]])
> > +			    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]) {
> > +				    pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[irq=%d](0x%x) vs. acpi_irq_penalty[%d](0x%x)\n",
> > +					    __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq], link->irq.possible[i], acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]);
> >  				irq = link->irq.possible[i];
> > +			    }
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  	if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
> > @@ -569,6 +575,7 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
> >  		return -ENODEV;
> >  	} else {
> >  		acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> > +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, link->irq.active, acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active]);
> >  		printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
> >  		       acpi_device_name(link->device),
> >  		       acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
> > @@ -804,6 +811,8 @@ static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
> >  		else
> >  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE;
> >  
> > +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
> > +
> >  		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
> >  			break;
> >  	}
> > @@ -824,11 +833,16 @@ void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
> >  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
> >  		else
> >  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> > +
> > +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> >  bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
> >  {
> > +	if (irq >= 0 && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)))
> > +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
> > +
> >  	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
> >  			    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
> >  }
> > @@ -846,6 +860,8 @@ void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
> >  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
> >  		else
> >  			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
> > +
> > +		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
> >  	}
> >  }
> >    
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Wim Osterholt June 23, 2016, 11:25 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:45:47AM -0400, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> > 
> > Sure, let me get a patch for you.
> 
> Here it is

http://webserver.djo.tudelft.nl/dmesg460+printpatch2


> I am trying to find a system with similar characteristics for debug

All from the same laptop, Dell Inspiron 4100.
The same problem arises at a Dell Inspiron 510m.
I've not seen it on a workstation Dell XW4300.



Groeten, Wim.


----- wim@djo.tudelft.nl -----

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
index ededa90..228b61f 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
@@ -487,15 +487,18 @@  int __init acpi_irq_penalty_init(void)
 			    link->irq.possible_count;
 
 			for (i = 0; i < link->irq.possible_count; i++) {
-				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ)
+				if (link->irq.possible[i] < ACPI_MAX_ISA_IRQ) {
 					acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.
 							 possible[i]] +=
 					    penalty;
+					pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, link->irq.possible[i], acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]);
+				}
 			}
 
 		} else if (link->irq.active) {
 			acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] +=
 			    PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_POSSIBLE;
+			pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, link->irq.active, acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active]);
 		}
 	}
 
@@ -548,8 +551,11 @@  static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
 		 */
 		for (i = (link->irq.possible_count - 1); i >= 0; i--) {
 			if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >
-			    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]])
+			    acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]) {
+				    pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[irq=%d](0x%x) vs. acpi_irq_penalty[%d](0x%x)\n",
+					    __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq], link->irq.possible[i], acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.possible[i]]);
 				irq = link->irq.possible[i];
+			    }
 		}
 	}
 	if (acpi_irq_penalty[irq] >= PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS) {
@@ -569,6 +575,7 @@  static int acpi_pci_link_allocate(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
 		return -ENODEV;
 	} else {
 		acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, link->irq.active, acpi_irq_penalty[link->irq.active]);
 		printk(KERN_WARNING PREFIX "%s [%s] enabled at IRQ %d\n",
 		       acpi_device_name(link->device),
 		       acpi_device_bid(link->device), link->irq.active);
@@ -804,6 +811,8 @@  static int __init acpi_irq_penalty_update(char *str, int used)
 		else
 			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] = PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_AVAILABLE;
 
+		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
+
 		if (retval != 2)	/* no next number */
 			break;
 	}
@@ -824,11 +833,16 @@  void acpi_penalize_isa_irq(int irq, int active)
 			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_USED;
 		else
 			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+
+		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
 	}
 }
 
 bool acpi_isa_irq_available(int irq)
 {
+	if (irq >= 0 && (irq < ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty)))
+		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
+
 	return irq >= 0 && (irq >= ARRAY_SIZE(acpi_irq_penalty) ||
 			    acpi_irq_penalty[irq] < PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS);
 }
@@ -846,6 +860,8 @@  void acpi_penalize_sci_irq(int irq, int trigger, int polarity)
 			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_ISA_ALWAYS;
 		else
 			acpi_irq_penalty[irq] += PIRQ_PENALTY_PCI_USING;
+
+		pr_info("%s:%d acpi_irq_penalty[%d] = 0x%x\n", __func__, __LINE__, irq, acpi_irq_penalty[irq]);
 	}
 }