no more X on intel based chip (Laptop)

Antonio Olivares olivares14031 at yahoo.com
Thu Mar 5 02:39:25 UTC 2009


Dear all,

As a result of the updates, no I don't have X on an intel based Laptop.  It gave the following:

[drm:drm_mode_getfb] *ERROR* invalid framebuffer id

=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.29-0.197.rc7.fc11.i586 #1
-------------------------------------------------------
Xorg/2743 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c049122f>] might_fault+0x48/0x85

but task is already holding lock:
 (&dev->struct_mutex){--..}, at: [<f7ddca1b>] i915_gem_execbuffer+0xd7/0xa1c [i915]

which lock already depends on the new lock.


the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&dev->struct_mutex){--..}:
       [<c0450bfe>] __lock_acquire+0x970/0xace
       [<c0450db7>] lock_acquire+0x5b/0x81
       [<c06efbcd>] __mutex_lock_common+0xdd/0x338
       [<c06efecf>] mutex_lock_nested+0x33/0x3b
       [<f7d865bd>] drm_gem_mmap+0x36/0xf7 [drm]
       [<c049786b>] mmap_region+0x243/0x3cb
       [<c0497c45>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x252/0x2a2
       [<c0407134>] sys_mmap2+0x5f/0x80
       [<c0403f92>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
       [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff

-> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}:
       [<c0450acb>] __lock_acquire+0x83d/0xace
       [<c0450db7>] lock_acquire+0x5b/0x81
       [<c049124c>] might_fault+0x65/0x85
       [<c0543a33>] copy_from_user+0x32/0x119
       [<f7ddcb64>] i915_gem_execbuffer+0x220/0xa1c [i915]
       [<f7d8570f>] drm_ioctl+0x1b7/0x236 [drm]
       [<c04b46c8>] vfs_ioctl+0x5a/0x74
       [<c04b4c70>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x48b/0x4c9
       [<c04b4cf4>] sys_ioctl+0x46/0x66
       [<c0403f92>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
       [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff

other info that might help us debug this:

1 lock held by Xorg/2743:
 #0:  (&dev->struct_mutex){--..}, at: [<f7ddca1b>] i915_gem_execbuffer+0xd7/0xa1c [i915]

stack backtrace:
Pid: 2743, comm: Xorg Not tainted 2.6.29-0.197.rc7.fc11.i586 #1
Call Trace:
 [<c06eea41>] ? printk+0x14/0x1b
 [<c0450079>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x5d/0x68
 [<c0450acb>] __lock_acquire+0x83d/0xace
 [<c06f0ee7>] ? _spin_unlock+0x22/0x25
 [<c049122f>] ? might_fault+0x48/0x85
 [<c0450db7>] lock_acquire+0x5b/0x81
 [<c049122f>] ? might_fault+0x48/0x85
 [<c049124c>] might_fault+0x65/0x85
 [<c049122f>] ? might_fault+0x48/0x85
 [<c0543a33>] copy_from_user+0x32/0x119
 [<f7ddcb64>] i915_gem_execbuffer+0x220/0xa1c [i915]
 [<c049126a>] ? might_fault+0x83/0x85
 [<c0543a33>] ? copy_from_user+0x32/0x119
 [<f7d8570f>] drm_ioctl+0x1b7/0x236 [drm]
 [<f7ddc944>] ? i915_gem_execbuffer+0x0/0xa1c [i915]
 [<c04b46c8>] vfs_ioctl+0x5a/0x74
 [<c04b4c70>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x48b/0x4c9
 [<c05173ba>] ? file_has_perm+0x81/0x8a
 [<c04b4cf4>] sys_ioctl+0x46/0x66
 [<c04b4cf4>] ? sys_ioctl+0x46/0x66
 [<c0403f92>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

reverting back to older kernel does no GOOD.  So I'll patiently await updates to see if one can fix this :)

Regards,

Antonio 


      




More information about the test mailing list