From patchwork Fri Dec 15 21:34:24 2023 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: =?utf-8?q?Alexis_Lothor=C3=A9?= X-Patchwork-Id: 13494946 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E336BC4167B for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 21:35:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Cc:To:Message-Id:MIME-Version:Subject: Date:From:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: List-Owner; bh=06I8qlgNRp8Ka4uPusmHbrrHGNDieVjetIrEZ8Jf3Y0=; b=EePCF5rNXqsYtV J7KaZ4oxIjkO/z3/YXBc2rigSQ4yaa13jkpeQXrnd/H1rfdQuAFwdOldauvJKVGrw28/kkjzGVC4d s8mu8R3JQ+k5g+TkBraLOuewLXrmirhHnHFZsKNU37dLg/NNI/PLiXk5PWPtCmVecytUrvdulN/EP JueL5t3B+5luNB3G8/ctILP7xz70Kw1i60p2raCA18OcaB19ZIFZZdU92qdF2aBfdWw0hjs86W0LA CPpc+TdLDWvMo3DhNnfAfaaOGTBkab0D060bQZgAl2W/XVs4IjRdVS6MFRog+B3eSmqoYMeIYVKQe l0amGXb1fy26iU8QKCuQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rEFq0-004cgg-1S; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 21:35:16 +0000 Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net ([2001:4b98:dc4:8::225]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1rEFpv-004cg2-2n for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 21:35:15 +0000 Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B86DB1C0002; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 21:35:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bootlin.com; s=gm1; t=1702676103; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=G8zzYhmC6DYHseYf8Ri/+OsA2IXrTdinCtMzNuRSXhg=; b=Pg46Y/S4B8GHTRHJwe9qQ5AMOVmYXb+JxlbIbLjpx6ngNdHk15mz8K4XWyH8jd2urdtX7I gDZVOvsAscHeMgM0uShjn6GFSpTKzqU0so5dDxl9Z7lHudrvRMi2EgUEgEwqdcAdTnllsV ouV7C7CdzZe/2VhGHxkewK7LN5IQvP5br5qAvAnkLgWBOesAEpove9h6/KgD+SyuF6GEtg KA9dZsXYd7HZ7blhcPQ4SzjzzPID8byHjAB2OsvNTiGDIZrDq0juPUU9v+SRQl3jbs6VKt ODJAWHLygUvhl6h/2VyOSNmNzlE0LeUXKVs+71AXHzP9NVMQzRCzs9h3Nf9Yug== From: =?utf-8?q?Alexis_Lothor=C3=A9?= Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 22:34:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91-pio4: use dedicated lock class for IRQ MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20231215-lockdep_warning-v1-1-8137b2510ed5@bootlin.com> X-B4-Tracking: v=1; b=H4sIAF/GfGUC/6tWKk4tykwtVrJSqFYqSi3LLM7MzwNyDHUUlJIzE vPSU3UzU4B8JSMDI2NDI0NT3Zz85OyU1IL48sSivMy8dF1LYzMTyyRjEzMLSyMloK6CotS0zAq widGxtbUA2W73QWEAAAA= To: Ludovic Desroches , Linus Walleij , Nicolas Ferre , Alexandre Belloni , Claudiu Beznea Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?q?Alexis_Lothor=C3=A9?= X-Mailer: b4 0.12.4 X-GND-Sasl: alexis.lothore@bootlin.com X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20231215_133512_337647_5D291782 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.74 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Trying to suspend to RAM on SAMA5D27 EVK leads to the following lockdep warning: ============================================ WARNING: possible recursive locking detected 6.7.0-rc5-wt+ #532 Not tainted -------------------------------------------- sh/92 is trying to acquire lock: c3cf306c (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: __irq_get_desc_lock+0xe8/0x100 but task is already holding lock: c3d7c46c (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: __irq_get_desc_lock+0xe8/0x100 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&irq_desc_lock_class); lock(&irq_desc_lock_class); *** DEADLOCK *** May be due to missing lock nesting notation 6 locks held by sh/92: #0: c3aa0258 (sb_writers#6){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0xd8/0x178 #1: c4c2df44 (&of->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x138/0x284 #2: c32684a0 (kn->active){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x148/0x284 #3: c232b6d4 (system_transition_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pm_suspend+0x13c/0x4e8 #4: c387b088 (&dev->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at: __device_suspend+0x1e8/0x91c #5: c3d7c46c (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: __irq_get_desc_lock+0xe8/0x100 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 92 Comm: sh Not tainted 6.7.0-rc5-wt+ #532 Hardware name: Atmel SAMA5 unwind_backtrace from show_stack+0x18/0x1c show_stack from dump_stack_lvl+0x34/0x48 dump_stack_lvl from __lock_acquire+0x19ec/0x3a0c __lock_acquire from lock_acquire.part.0+0x124/0x2d0 lock_acquire.part.0 from _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x5c/0x78 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave from __irq_get_desc_lock+0xe8/0x100 __irq_get_desc_lock from irq_set_irq_wake+0xa8/0x204 irq_set_irq_wake from atmel_gpio_irq_set_wake+0x58/0xb4 atmel_gpio_irq_set_wake from irq_set_irq_wake+0x100/0x204 irq_set_irq_wake from gpio_keys_suspend+0xec/0x2b8 gpio_keys_suspend from dpm_run_callback+0xe4/0x248 dpm_run_callback from __device_suspend+0x234/0x91c __device_suspend from dpm_suspend+0x224/0x43c dpm_suspend from dpm_suspend_start+0x9c/0xa8 dpm_suspend_start from suspend_devices_and_enter+0x1e0/0xa84 suspend_devices_and_enter from pm_suspend+0x460/0x4e8 pm_suspend from state_store+0x78/0xe4 state_store from kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x1a0/0x284 kernfs_fop_write_iter from vfs_write+0x38c/0x6f4 vfs_write from ksys_write+0xd8/0x178 ksys_write from ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c Exception stack(0xc52b3fa8 to 0xc52b3ff0) 3fa0: 00000004 005a0ae8 00000001 005a0ae8 00000004 00000001 3fc0: 00000004 005a0ae8 00000001 00000004 00000004 b6c616c0 00000020 0059d190 3fe0: 00000004 b6c61678 aec5a041 aebf1a26 This warning is raised because pinctrl-at91-pio4 uses chained IRQ. Whenever a wake up source configures an IRQ through irq_set_irq_wake, it will lock the corresponding IRQ desc, and then call irq_set_irq_wake on "parent" IRQ which will do the same on its own IRQ desc, but since those two locks share the same class, lockdep reports this as an issue. Fix lockdep false positive by setting a different class for parent and children IRQ Fixes: 776180848b57 ("pinctrl: introduce driver for Atmel PIO4 controller") Signed-off-by: Alexis Lothoré --- drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) --- base-commit: 1a756b6d03605c5a6acf68f6b74e6d56af52737f change-id: 20231215-lockdep_warning-93649b346892 Best regards, diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c index 383309e533c3..a27c01fcbb47 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c @@ -1068,6 +1068,13 @@ static const struct of_device_id atmel_pctrl_of_match[] = { } }; +/* + * This lock class allows to tell lockdep that parent IRQ and children IRQ do + * not share the same class so it does not raise false positive + */ +static struct lock_class_key atmel_lock_key; +static struct lock_class_key atmel_request_key; + static int atmel_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; @@ -1214,6 +1221,7 @@ static int atmel_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &atmel_gpio_irq_chip, handle_simple_irq); irq_set_chip_data(irq, atmel_pioctrl); + irq_set_lockdep_class(irq, &atmel_lock_key, &atmel_request_key); dev_dbg(dev, "atmel gpio irq domain: hwirq: %d, linux irq: %d\n", i, irq);