| Message ID | 1387797184-18958-1-git-send-email-b29396@freescale.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 07:13:04PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same > code. Probably just because you did not turn on CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING on your 3.10.17 kennel. Shawn > And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc > controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not > be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). > May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? > Copy lockdep guy to comment. > --- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 08:23:17PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 07:13:04PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > > It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same > > code. > > Probably just because you did not turn on CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING on your > 3.10.17 kennel. > I did turn it on for the test. Regards Dong Aisheng > Shawn > > > And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc > > controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not > > be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). > > May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? > > Copy lockdep guy to comment. > > --- > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Peter, On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Dong Aisheng <b29396@freescale.com> wrote: > The sdhci_execute_tuning routine gets lock separately by > disable_irq(host->irq); > spin_lock(&host->lock); > It will cause the following lockdep error message since the &host->lock > could also be got in irq context. > Use spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_restore instead to get rid of > this error message. > > [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] > 3.13.0-rc1+ #287 Not tainted > --------------------------------- > inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage. > kworker/u2:1/33 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes: > (&(&host->lock)->rlock){?.-...}, at: [<8045f7f4>] sdhci_execute_tuning+0x4c/0x710 > {IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at: > [<8005f030>] mark_lock+0x140/0x6ac > [<80060760>] __lock_acquire+0xb30/0x1cbc > [<800620d0>] lock_acquire+0x70/0x84 > [<8061d1c8>] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40 > [<804605cc>] sdhci_irq+0x24/0xa68 > [<8006b1d4>] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x54/0x18c > [<8006b350>] handle_irq_event+0x44/0x64 > [<8006e50c>] handle_fasteoi_irq+0xa0/0x170 > [<8006a8f0>] generic_handle_irq+0x30/0x44 > [<8000f238>] handle_IRQ+0x54/0xbc > [<8000864c>] gic_handle_irq+0x30/0x64 > [<80013024>] __irq_svc+0x44/0x5c > [<80329bf4>] dev_vprintk_emit+0x50/0x58 > [<80329c24>] dev_printk_emit+0x28/0x30 > [<80329fec>] __dev_printk+0x4c/0x90 > [<8032a180>] dev_err+0x3c/0x48 > [<802dd4f0>] _regulator_get+0x158/0x1cc > [<802dd5b4>] regulator_get_optional+0x18/0x1c > [<80461df4>] sdhci_add_host+0x42c/0xbd8 > [<80464820>] sdhci_esdhc_imx_probe+0x378/0x67c > [<8032ee88>] platform_drv_probe+0x20/0x50 > [<8032d48c>] driver_probe_device+0x118/0x234 > [<8032d690>] __driver_attach+0x9c/0xa0 > [<8032b89c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x68/0x9c > [<8032cf44>] driver_attach+0x20/0x28 > [<8032cbc8>] bus_add_driver+0x148/0x1f4 > [<8032dce0>] driver_register+0x80/0x100 > [<8032ee54>] __platform_driver_register+0x50/0x64 > [<8084b094>] sdhci_esdhc_imx_driver_init+0x18/0x20 > [<80008980>] do_one_initcall+0x108/0x16c > [<8081cca4>] kernel_init_freeable+0x10c/0x1d0 > [<80611b28>] kernel_init+0x10/0x120 > [<8000e9c8>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c > irq event stamp: 805 > hardirqs last enabled at (805): [<8061d43c>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x38/0x4c > hardirqs last disabled at (804): [<8061d2c8>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x24/0x54 > softirqs last enabled at (570): [<8002b824>] __do_softirq+0x1c4/0x290 > softirqs last disabled at (561): [<8002bcf4>] irq_exit+0xb4/0x10c > > other info that might help us debug this: > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 > ---- > lock(&(&host->lock)->rlock); > <Interrupt> > lock(&(&host->lock)->rlock); > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > 2 locks held by kworker/u2:1/33: > #0: (kmmcd){.+.+..}, at: [<8003db18>] process_one_work+0x128/0x468 > #1: ((&(&host->detect)->work)){+.+...}, at: [<8003db18>] process_one_work+0x128/0x468 > > stack backtrace: > CPU: 0 PID: 33 Comm: kworker/u2:1 Not tainted 3.13.0-rc1+ #287 > Workqueue: kmmcd mmc_rescan > Backtrace: > [<80012160>] (dump_backtrace+0x0/0x10c) from [<80012438>] (show_stack+0x18/0x1c) > r6:bfad0900 r5:00000000 r4:8088ecc8 r3:bfad0900 > [<80012420>] (show_stack+0x0/0x1c) from [<806169ec>] (dump_stack+0x84/0x9c) > [<80616968>] (dump_stack+0x0/0x9c) from [<806147b4>] (print_usage_bug+0x260/0x2d0) > r5:8076ba88 r4:80977410 > [<80614554>] (print_usage_bug+0x0/0x2d0) from [<8005f0d0>] (mark_lock+0x1e0/0x6ac) > r9:8005e678 r8:00000000 r7:bfad0900 r6:00001015 r5:bfad0cd0 > r4:00000002 > [<8005eef0>] (mark_lock+0x0/0x6ac) from [<80060234>] (__lock_acquire+0x604/0x1cbc) > [<8005fc30>] (__lock_acquire+0x0/0x1cbc) from [<800620d0>] (lock_acquire+0x70/0x84) > [<80062060>] (lock_acquire+0x0/0x84) from [<8061d1c8>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40) > r7:00000000 r6:bfb63000 r5:00000000 r4:bfb60568 > [<8061d198>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x0/0x40) from [<8045f7f4>] (sdhci_execute_tuning+0x4c/0x710) > r4:bfb60000 > [<8045f7a8>] (sdhci_execute_tuning+0x0/0x710) from [<80453454>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x5f8/0x660) > [<80452e5c>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x0/0x660) from [<80453748>] (mmc_attach_sd+0xb4/0x180) > r9:bf92d400 r8:8065f364 r7:00061a80 r6:bfb60000 r5:8065f358 > r4:bfb60000 > [<80453694>] (mmc_attach_sd+0x0/0x180) from [<8044d9f8>] (mmc_rescan+0x284/0x2f0) > r5:8065f358 r4:bfb602f8 > [<8044d774>] (mmc_rescan+0x0/0x2f0) from [<8003db94>] (process_one_work+0x1a4/0x468) > r8:00000000 r7:bfb55eb0 r6:bf80dc00 r5:bfb602f8 r4:bfb35980 > r3:8044d774 > [<8003d9f0>] (process_one_work+0x0/0x468) from [<8003e850>] (worker_thread+0x118/0x3e0) > [<8003e738>] (worker_thread+0x0/0x3e0) from [<80044de0>] (kthread+0xd4/0xf0) > [<80044d0c>] (kthread+0x0/0xf0) from [<8000e9c8>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c) > r7:00000000 r6:00000000 r5:80044d0c r4:bfb37b40 > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org> > Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <b29396@freescale.com> > > --- > It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same > code. And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc > controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not > be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). > May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? > Copy lockdep guy to comment. Any comments for it? Regards Dong Aisheng > --- > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 20 +++++++------------- > 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > index a104bb1..c5d5f53 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > @@ -1876,12 +1876,12 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > unsigned long timeout; > int err = 0; > bool requires_tuning_nonuhs = false; > + unsigned long flags; > > host = mmc_priv(mmc); > > sdhci_runtime_pm_get(host); > - disable_irq(host->irq); > - spin_lock(&host->lock); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); > > ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2); > > @@ -1901,15 +1901,13 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > requires_tuning_nonuhs) > ctrl |= SDHCI_CTRL_EXEC_TUNING; > else { > - spin_unlock(&host->lock); > - enable_irq(host->irq); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); > sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); > return 0; > } > > if (host->ops->platform_execute_tuning) { > - spin_unlock(&host->lock); > - enable_irq(host->irq); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); > err = host->ops->platform_execute_tuning(host, opcode); > sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); > return err; > @@ -1982,15 +1980,12 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > host->cmd = NULL; > host->mrq = NULL; > > - spin_unlock(&host->lock); > - enable_irq(host->irq); > - > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); > /* Wait for Buffer Read Ready interrupt */ > wait_event_interruptible_timeout(host->buf_ready_int, > (host->tuning_done == 1), > msecs_to_jiffies(50)); > - disable_irq(host->irq); > - spin_lock(&host->lock); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); > > if (!host->tuning_done) { > pr_info(DRIVER_NAME ": Timeout waiting for " > @@ -2065,8 +2060,7 @@ out: > err = 0; > > sdhci_clear_set_irqs(host, SDHCI_INT_DATA_AVAIL, ier); > - spin_unlock(&host->lock); > - enable_irq(host->irq); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); > sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); > > return err; > -- > 1.7.2.rc3 > > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Ping.... On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Dong Aisheng <dongas86@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Dong Aisheng <b29396@freescale.com> wrote: >> The sdhci_execute_tuning routine gets lock separately by >> disable_irq(host->irq); >> spin_lock(&host->lock); >> It will cause the following lockdep error message since the &host->lock >> could also be got in irq context. >> Use spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_restore instead to get rid of >> this error message. >> >> [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] >> 3.13.0-rc1+ #287 Not tainted >> --------------------------------- >> inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage. >> kworker/u2:1/33 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes: >> (&(&host->lock)->rlock){?.-...}, at: [<8045f7f4>] sdhci_execute_tuning+0x4c/0x710 >> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at: >> [<8005f030>] mark_lock+0x140/0x6ac >> [<80060760>] __lock_acquire+0xb30/0x1cbc >> [<800620d0>] lock_acquire+0x70/0x84 >> [<8061d1c8>] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40 >> [<804605cc>] sdhci_irq+0x24/0xa68 >> [<8006b1d4>] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x54/0x18c >> [<8006b350>] handle_irq_event+0x44/0x64 >> [<8006e50c>] handle_fasteoi_irq+0xa0/0x170 >> [<8006a8f0>] generic_handle_irq+0x30/0x44 >> [<8000f238>] handle_IRQ+0x54/0xbc >> [<8000864c>] gic_handle_irq+0x30/0x64 >> [<80013024>] __irq_svc+0x44/0x5c >> [<80329bf4>] dev_vprintk_emit+0x50/0x58 >> [<80329c24>] dev_printk_emit+0x28/0x30 >> [<80329fec>] __dev_printk+0x4c/0x90 >> [<8032a180>] dev_err+0x3c/0x48 >> [<802dd4f0>] _regulator_get+0x158/0x1cc >> [<802dd5b4>] regulator_get_optional+0x18/0x1c >> [<80461df4>] sdhci_add_host+0x42c/0xbd8 >> [<80464820>] sdhci_esdhc_imx_probe+0x378/0x67c >> [<8032ee88>] platform_drv_probe+0x20/0x50 >> [<8032d48c>] driver_probe_device+0x118/0x234 >> [<8032d690>] __driver_attach+0x9c/0xa0 >> [<8032b89c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x68/0x9c >> [<8032cf44>] driver_attach+0x20/0x28 >> [<8032cbc8>] bus_add_driver+0x148/0x1f4 >> [<8032dce0>] driver_register+0x80/0x100 >> [<8032ee54>] __platform_driver_register+0x50/0x64 >> [<8084b094>] sdhci_esdhc_imx_driver_init+0x18/0x20 >> [<80008980>] do_one_initcall+0x108/0x16c >> [<8081cca4>] kernel_init_freeable+0x10c/0x1d0 >> [<80611b28>] kernel_init+0x10/0x120 >> [<8000e9c8>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c >> irq event stamp: 805 >> hardirqs last enabled at (805): [<8061d43c>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x38/0x4c >> hardirqs last disabled at (804): [<8061d2c8>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x24/0x54 >> softirqs last enabled at (570): [<8002b824>] __do_softirq+0x1c4/0x290 >> softirqs last disabled at (561): [<8002bcf4>] irq_exit+0xb4/0x10c >> >> other info that might help us debug this: >> Possible unsafe locking scenario: >> >> CPU0 >> ---- >> lock(&(&host->lock)->rlock); >> <Interrupt> >> lock(&(&host->lock)->rlock); >> >> *** DEADLOCK *** >> >> 2 locks held by kworker/u2:1/33: >> #0: (kmmcd){.+.+..}, at: [<8003db18>] process_one_work+0x128/0x468 >> #1: ((&(&host->detect)->work)){+.+...}, at: [<8003db18>] process_one_work+0x128/0x468 >> >> stack backtrace: >> CPU: 0 PID: 33 Comm: kworker/u2:1 Not tainted 3.13.0-rc1+ #287 >> Workqueue: kmmcd mmc_rescan >> Backtrace: >> [<80012160>] (dump_backtrace+0x0/0x10c) from [<80012438>] (show_stack+0x18/0x1c) >> r6:bfad0900 r5:00000000 r4:8088ecc8 r3:bfad0900 >> [<80012420>] (show_stack+0x0/0x1c) from [<806169ec>] (dump_stack+0x84/0x9c) >> [<80616968>] (dump_stack+0x0/0x9c) from [<806147b4>] (print_usage_bug+0x260/0x2d0) >> r5:8076ba88 r4:80977410 >> [<80614554>] (print_usage_bug+0x0/0x2d0) from [<8005f0d0>] (mark_lock+0x1e0/0x6ac) >> r9:8005e678 r8:00000000 r7:bfad0900 r6:00001015 r5:bfad0cd0 >> r4:00000002 >> [<8005eef0>] (mark_lock+0x0/0x6ac) from [<80060234>] (__lock_acquire+0x604/0x1cbc) >> [<8005fc30>] (__lock_acquire+0x0/0x1cbc) from [<800620d0>] (lock_acquire+0x70/0x84) >> [<80062060>] (lock_acquire+0x0/0x84) from [<8061d1c8>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40) >> r7:00000000 r6:bfb63000 r5:00000000 r4:bfb60568 >> [<8061d198>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x0/0x40) from [<8045f7f4>] (sdhci_execute_tuning+0x4c/0x710) >> r4:bfb60000 >> [<8045f7a8>] (sdhci_execute_tuning+0x0/0x710) from [<80453454>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x5f8/0x660) >> [<80452e5c>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x0/0x660) from [<80453748>] (mmc_attach_sd+0xb4/0x180) >> r9:bf92d400 r8:8065f364 r7:00061a80 r6:bfb60000 r5:8065f358 >> r4:bfb60000 >> [<80453694>] (mmc_attach_sd+0x0/0x180) from [<8044d9f8>] (mmc_rescan+0x284/0x2f0) >> r5:8065f358 r4:bfb602f8 >> [<8044d774>] (mmc_rescan+0x0/0x2f0) from [<8003db94>] (process_one_work+0x1a4/0x468) >> r8:00000000 r7:bfb55eb0 r6:bf80dc00 r5:bfb602f8 r4:bfb35980 >> r3:8044d774 >> [<8003d9f0>] (process_one_work+0x0/0x468) from [<8003e850>] (worker_thread+0x118/0x3e0) >> [<8003e738>] (worker_thread+0x0/0x3e0) from [<80044de0>] (kthread+0xd4/0xf0) >> [<80044d0c>] (kthread+0x0/0xf0) from [<8000e9c8>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c) >> r7:00000000 r6:00000000 r5:80044d0c r4:bfb37b40 >> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >> Cc: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org> >> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <b29396@freescale.com> >> >> --- >> It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same >> code. And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc >> controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not >> be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). >> May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? >> Copy lockdep guy to comment. > > Any comments for it? > > Regards > Dong Aisheng > >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 20 +++++++------------- >> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> index a104bb1..c5d5f53 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> @@ -1876,12 +1876,12 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> unsigned long timeout; >> int err = 0; >> bool requires_tuning_nonuhs = false; >> + unsigned long flags; >> >> host = mmc_priv(mmc); >> >> sdhci_runtime_pm_get(host); >> - disable_irq(host->irq); >> - spin_lock(&host->lock); >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); >> >> ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2); >> >> @@ -1901,15 +1901,13 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> requires_tuning_nonuhs) >> ctrl |= SDHCI_CTRL_EXEC_TUNING; >> else { >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> - enable_irq(host->irq); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >> return 0; >> } >> >> if (host->ops->platform_execute_tuning) { >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> - enable_irq(host->irq); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> err = host->ops->platform_execute_tuning(host, opcode); >> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >> return err; >> @@ -1982,15 +1980,12 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> host->cmd = NULL; >> host->mrq = NULL; >> >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> - enable_irq(host->irq); >> - >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> /* Wait for Buffer Read Ready interrupt */ >> wait_event_interruptible_timeout(host->buf_ready_int, >> (host->tuning_done == 1), >> msecs_to_jiffies(50)); >> - disable_irq(host->irq); >> - spin_lock(&host->lock); >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); >> >> if (!host->tuning_done) { >> pr_info(DRIVER_NAME ": Timeout waiting for " >> @@ -2065,8 +2060,7 @@ out: >> err = 0; >> >> sdhci_clear_set_irqs(host, SDHCI_INT_DATA_AVAIL, ier); >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> - enable_irq(host->irq); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >> >> return err; >> -- >> 1.7.2.rc3 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 03:58:20PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > > It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same > > code. And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc > > controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not > > be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). > > May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? > > Copy lockdep guy to comment. No, lockdep also doesn't know only that one line can take this lock. Lockdep only knows a lock is taken from IRQ context, and disabling one line still allows IRQs to happen and therefore it yells. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 03:58:20PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> > It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same >> > code. And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc >> > controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not >> > be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). >> > May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? >> > Copy lockdep guy to comment. > > No, lockdep also doesn't know only that one line can take this lock. > Lockdep only knows a lock is taken from IRQ context, and disabling one > line still allows IRQs to happen and therefore it yells. Okay, thanks for the information. If that, kernel 3.10.17 has the same code, do you know why it does not trigger such lockdep error? Regards Dong Aisheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi, Dong Aisheng wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 03:58:20PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > >> > It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same > >> > code. And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc > >> > controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not > >> > be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). > >> > May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? > >> > Copy lockdep guy to comment. > > > > No, lockdep also doesn't know only that one line can take this lock. > > Lockdep only knows a lock is taken from IRQ context, and disabling one > > line still allows IRQs to happen and therefore it yells. > > Okay, thanks for the information. > If that, kernel 3.10.17 has the same code, do you know why it does not trigger > such lockdep error? > compiled with CONFIG_LOCKDEP disabled? Lothar Waßmann
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Lothar Waßmann <LW@karo-electronics.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Dong Aisheng wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 03:58:20PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> >> > It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same >> >> > code. And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc >> >> > controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not >> >> > be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). >> >> > May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? >> >> > Copy lockdep guy to comment. >> > >> > No, lockdep also doesn't know only that one line can take this lock. >> > Lockdep only knows a lock is taken from IRQ context, and disabling one >> > line still allows IRQs to happen and therefore it yells. >> >> Okay, thanks for the information. >> If that, kernel 3.10.17 has the same code, do you know why it does not trigger >> such lockdep error? >> > compiled with CONFIG_LOCKDEP disabled? > I did compile with LOCKDEP enabled. See below for a part of my .config CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=y CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=y CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y # CONFIG_LOCK_STAT is not set # CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP is not set CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS=y CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y That's why i think it's strange. Regards Dong Aisheng > > Lothar Waßmann > -- > ___________________________________________________________ > > Ka-Ro electronics GmbH | Pascalstraße 22 | D - 52076 Aachen > Phone: +49 2408 1402-0 | Fax: +49 2408 1402-10 > Geschäftsführer: Matthias Kaussen > Handelsregistereintrag: Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB 4996 > > www.karo-electronics.de | info@karo-electronics.de > ___________________________________________________________ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:19:27PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 03:58:20PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: > >> > It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same > >> > code. And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc > >> > controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not > >> > be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). > >> > May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? > >> > Copy lockdep guy to comment. > > > > No, lockdep also doesn't know only that one line can take this lock. > > Lockdep only knows a lock is taken from IRQ context, and disabling one > > line still allows IRQs to happen and therefore it yells. > > Okay, thanks for the information. > If that, kernel 3.10.17 has the same code, do you know why it does not trigger > such lockdep error? No idea; there haven't really been big lockdep changes recently. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:19:27PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 03:58:20PM +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> >> > It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same >> >> > code. And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc >> >> > controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not >> >> > be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). >> >> > May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? >> >> > Copy lockdep guy to comment. >> > >> > No, lockdep also doesn't know only that one line can take this lock. >> > Lockdep only knows a lock is taken from IRQ context, and disabling one >> > line still allows IRQs to happen and therefore it yells. >> >> Okay, thanks for the information. >> If that, kernel 3.10.17 has the same code, do you know why it does not trigger >> such lockdep error? > > No idea; there haven't really been big lockdep changes recently. Okay, thanks. Anyway, this patch fix should be needed to avoid the lockdep error. Chirs, Can you pick it up? Regards Dong Aisheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c index a104bb1..c5d5f53 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c @@ -1876,12 +1876,12 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) unsigned long timeout; int err = 0; bool requires_tuning_nonuhs = false; + unsigned long flags; host = mmc_priv(mmc); sdhci_runtime_pm_get(host); - disable_irq(host->irq); - spin_lock(&host->lock); + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2); @@ -1901,15 +1901,13 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) requires_tuning_nonuhs) ctrl |= SDHCI_CTRL_EXEC_TUNING; else { - spin_unlock(&host->lock); - enable_irq(host->irq); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); return 0; } if (host->ops->platform_execute_tuning) { - spin_unlock(&host->lock); - enable_irq(host->irq); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); err = host->ops->platform_execute_tuning(host, opcode); sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); return err; @@ -1982,15 +1980,12 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) host->cmd = NULL; host->mrq = NULL; - spin_unlock(&host->lock); - enable_irq(host->irq); - + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); /* Wait for Buffer Read Ready interrupt */ wait_event_interruptible_timeout(host->buf_ready_int, (host->tuning_done == 1), msecs_to_jiffies(50)); - disable_irq(host->irq); - spin_lock(&host->lock); + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); if (!host->tuning_done) { pr_info(DRIVER_NAME ": Timeout waiting for " @@ -2065,8 +2060,7 @@ out: err = 0; sdhci_clear_set_irqs(host, SDHCI_INT_DATA_AVAIL, ier); - spin_unlock(&host->lock); - enable_irq(host->irq); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); return err;
The sdhci_execute_tuning routine gets lock separately by disable_irq(host->irq); spin_lock(&host->lock); It will cause the following lockdep error message since the &host->lock could also be got in irq context. Use spin_lock_irqsave/spin_unlock_restore instead to get rid of this error message. [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] 3.13.0-rc1+ #287 Not tainted --------------------------------- inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage. kworker/u2:1/33 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes: (&(&host->lock)->rlock){?.-...}, at: [<8045f7f4>] sdhci_execute_tuning+0x4c/0x710 {IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at: [<8005f030>] mark_lock+0x140/0x6ac [<80060760>] __lock_acquire+0xb30/0x1cbc [<800620d0>] lock_acquire+0x70/0x84 [<8061d1c8>] _raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40 [<804605cc>] sdhci_irq+0x24/0xa68 [<8006b1d4>] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x54/0x18c [<8006b350>] handle_irq_event+0x44/0x64 [<8006e50c>] handle_fasteoi_irq+0xa0/0x170 [<8006a8f0>] generic_handle_irq+0x30/0x44 [<8000f238>] handle_IRQ+0x54/0xbc [<8000864c>] gic_handle_irq+0x30/0x64 [<80013024>] __irq_svc+0x44/0x5c [<80329bf4>] dev_vprintk_emit+0x50/0x58 [<80329c24>] dev_printk_emit+0x28/0x30 [<80329fec>] __dev_printk+0x4c/0x90 [<8032a180>] dev_err+0x3c/0x48 [<802dd4f0>] _regulator_get+0x158/0x1cc [<802dd5b4>] regulator_get_optional+0x18/0x1c [<80461df4>] sdhci_add_host+0x42c/0xbd8 [<80464820>] sdhci_esdhc_imx_probe+0x378/0x67c [<8032ee88>] platform_drv_probe+0x20/0x50 [<8032d48c>] driver_probe_device+0x118/0x234 [<8032d690>] __driver_attach+0x9c/0xa0 [<8032b89c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x68/0x9c [<8032cf44>] driver_attach+0x20/0x28 [<8032cbc8>] bus_add_driver+0x148/0x1f4 [<8032dce0>] driver_register+0x80/0x100 [<8032ee54>] __platform_driver_register+0x50/0x64 [<8084b094>] sdhci_esdhc_imx_driver_init+0x18/0x20 [<80008980>] do_one_initcall+0x108/0x16c [<8081cca4>] kernel_init_freeable+0x10c/0x1d0 [<80611b28>] kernel_init+0x10/0x120 [<8000e9c8>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c irq event stamp: 805 hardirqs last enabled at (805): [<8061d43c>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x38/0x4c hardirqs last disabled at (804): [<8061d2c8>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x24/0x54 softirqs last enabled at (570): [<8002b824>] __do_softirq+0x1c4/0x290 softirqs last disabled at (561): [<8002bcf4>] irq_exit+0xb4/0x10c other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&(&host->lock)->rlock); <Interrupt> lock(&(&host->lock)->rlock); *** DEADLOCK *** 2 locks held by kworker/u2:1/33: #0: (kmmcd){.+.+..}, at: [<8003db18>] process_one_work+0x128/0x468 #1: ((&(&host->detect)->work)){+.+...}, at: [<8003db18>] process_one_work+0x128/0x468 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 33 Comm: kworker/u2:1 Not tainted 3.13.0-rc1+ #287 Workqueue: kmmcd mmc_rescan Backtrace: [<80012160>] (dump_backtrace+0x0/0x10c) from [<80012438>] (show_stack+0x18/0x1c) r6:bfad0900 r5:00000000 r4:8088ecc8 r3:bfad0900 [<80012420>] (show_stack+0x0/0x1c) from [<806169ec>] (dump_stack+0x84/0x9c) [<80616968>] (dump_stack+0x0/0x9c) from [<806147b4>] (print_usage_bug+0x260/0x2d0) r5:8076ba88 r4:80977410 [<80614554>] (print_usage_bug+0x0/0x2d0) from [<8005f0d0>] (mark_lock+0x1e0/0x6ac) r9:8005e678 r8:00000000 r7:bfad0900 r6:00001015 r5:bfad0cd0 r4:00000002 [<8005eef0>] (mark_lock+0x0/0x6ac) from [<80060234>] (__lock_acquire+0x604/0x1cbc) [<8005fc30>] (__lock_acquire+0x0/0x1cbc) from [<800620d0>] (lock_acquire+0x70/0x84) [<80062060>] (lock_acquire+0x0/0x84) from [<8061d1c8>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x30/0x40) r7:00000000 r6:bfb63000 r5:00000000 r4:bfb60568 [<8061d198>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x0/0x40) from [<8045f7f4>] (sdhci_execute_tuning+0x4c/0x710) r4:bfb60000 [<8045f7a8>] (sdhci_execute_tuning+0x0/0x710) from [<80453454>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x5f8/0x660) [<80452e5c>] (mmc_sd_init_card+0x0/0x660) from [<80453748>] (mmc_attach_sd+0xb4/0x180) r9:bf92d400 r8:8065f364 r7:00061a80 r6:bfb60000 r5:8065f358 r4:bfb60000 [<80453694>] (mmc_attach_sd+0x0/0x180) from [<8044d9f8>] (mmc_rescan+0x284/0x2f0) r5:8065f358 r4:bfb602f8 [<8044d774>] (mmc_rescan+0x0/0x2f0) from [<8003db94>] (process_one_work+0x1a4/0x468) r8:00000000 r7:bfb55eb0 r6:bf80dc00 r5:bfb602f8 r4:bfb35980 r3:8044d774 [<8003d9f0>] (process_one_work+0x0/0x468) from [<8003e850>] (worker_thread+0x118/0x3e0) [<8003e738>] (worker_thread+0x0/0x3e0) from [<80044de0>] (kthread+0xd4/0xf0) [<80044d0c>] (kthread+0x0/0xf0) from [<8000e9c8>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c) r7:00000000 r6:00000000 r5:80044d0c r4:bfb37b40 Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <b29396@freescale.com> --- It's strange that this issue did not happen on kernel 3.10.17 with the same code. And looking at the code, before call spin_lock we already disable the mmc controller irq, per on my understanding, the deadlock given by lockdep may not be able to happen(pls fix me if wrong). May the lockdep not track the specific irq disable? Copy lockdep guy to comment. --- drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 20 +++++++------------- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)