7fc060 EBP: ef4d7dd8 ESP: ef4d7db0 [126167.232018] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 00e0 SS: 0068 [126167.232018] Process Xorg (pid: 1101, ti=ef4d6000 task=f1ba6500 task.ti=ef4d6000) [126167.232018] Stack: [126167.232018] f1a28000 f1a2809c f1a28094 0058bd97 f1aa2400 f1a2801c 0058bd7b 0058bd85 [126167.232018] f1a2801c f1a28000 ef4d7e38 f8c2e995 ef4d7e30 ef4d7e60 c14d1ebc f6b3a040 [126167.232018] f1522cc0 000000db 00000000 f1ba6500 ffffffa1 00000000 00000001 f1a29214 [126167.232018] Call Trace: Unfortunately the call trace reported was cut, but looking at debug symbols the crash is at __list_del, when probably list_del is called twice on the same request->client_list, as the dereferenced value is LIST_POISON1 + 4, and by looking more at the debug symbols before list_del call it should have being called by i915_gem_request_remove_from_client And as I can see in the code, it seems we indeed have the possibility to remove a request->client_list twice, which would cause the above, because we do list_del(&request->client_list) on both i915_gem_request_remove_from_client and i915_gem_release As Chris Wilson pointed out, it's indeed the case: "(...) I had thought that the actual insertion/deletion was serialised under the struct mutex and the intention of the spinlock was to protect the unlocked list traversal during throttling. However, I missed that i915_gem_release() is also called without struct mutex and so we do need the double check for i915_gem_request_remove_from_client()." This change does the required check to avoid the duplicate remove of request->client_list. Bugzilla: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/733780 Cc: stable@kernel.org # 2.6.38 Signed-off-by: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson Ê·»H•7x