Date:	Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:08:55 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Cc:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Yan Burman <yanb@...lanox.com>,
	Jack Morgenstein <jackm@....mellanox.co.il>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCHv2 for-3.9] pci: avoid work_on_cpu for nested SRIOV probes

The following lockdep report triggers since 3.9-rc1:

=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
3.9.0-rc1 #96 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
kworker/0:1/734 is trying to acquire lock:
 ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81066cb0>] flush_work+0x0/0x250

but task is already holding lock:
 ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81064352>]
process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0
       ----
  lock((&wfc.work));
  lock((&wfc.work));

 *** DEADLOCK ***

 May be due to missing lock nesting notation

3 locks held by kworker/0:1/734:
 #0:  (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81064352>]
process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
 #1:  ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81064352>]
process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
 #2:  (&__lockdep_no_validate__){......}, at: [<ffffffff812db225>]
device_attach+0x25/0xb0

stack backtrace:
Pid: 734, comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.9.0-rc1 #96
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff810948ec>] validate_chain+0xdcc/0x11f0
 [<ffffffff81095150>] __lock_acquire+0x440/0xc70
 [<ffffffff81095150>] ? __lock_acquire+0x440/0xc70
 [<ffffffff810959da>] lock_acquire+0x5a/0x70
 [<ffffffff81066cb0>] ? wq_worker_waking_up+0x60/0x60
 [<ffffffff81066cf5>] flush_work+0x45/0x250
 [<ffffffff81066cb0>] ? wq_worker_waking_up+0x60/0x60
 [<ffffffff810922be>] ? mark_held_locks+0x9e/0x130
 [<ffffffff81066a96>] ? queue_work_on+0x46/0x90
 [<ffffffff810925dd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfd/0x190
 [<ffffffff8109267d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
 [<ffffffff81066f74>] work_on_cpu+0x74/0x90
 [<ffffffff81063820>] ? keventd_up+0x20/0x20
 [<ffffffff8121fd30>] ? pci_pm_prepare+0x60/0x60
 [<ffffffff811f9293>] ? cpumask_next_and+0x23/0x40
 [<ffffffff81220a1a>] pci_device_probe+0xba/0x110
 [<ffffffff812dadca>] ? driver_sysfs_add+0x7a/0xb0
 [<ffffffff812daf1f>] driver_probe_device+0x8f/0x230
 [<ffffffff812db170>] ? __driver_attach+0xb0/0xb0
 [<ffffffff812db1bb>] __device_attach+0x4b/0x60
 [<ffffffff812d9314>] bus_for_each_drv+0x64/0x90
 [<ffffffff812db298>] device_attach+0x98/0xb0
 [<ffffffff81218474>] pci_bus_add_device+0x24/0x50
 [<ffffffff81232e80>] virtfn_add+0x240/0x3e0
 [<ffffffff8146ce3d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3d/0x80
 [<ffffffff812333be>] pci_enable_sriov+0x23e/0x500
 [<ffffffffa011fa1a>] __mlx4_init_one+0x5da/0xce0 [mlx4_core]
 [<ffffffffa012016d>] mlx4_init_one+0x2d/0x60 [mlx4_core]
 [<ffffffff8121fd79>] local_pci_probe+0x49/0x80
 [<ffffffff81063833>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x13/0x20
 [<ffffffff810643b8>] process_one_work+0x1c8/0x4c0
 [<ffffffff81064352>] ? process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
 [<ffffffff81064cfb>] worker_thread+0x30b/0x430
 [<ffffffff810649f0>] ? manage_workers+0x340/0x340
 [<ffffffff8106cea6>] kthread+0xd6/0xe0
 [<ffffffff8106cdd0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
 [<ffffffff8146daac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
 [<ffffffff8106cdd0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70

The issue is that a driver, in it's probe function, calls
pci_sriov_enable so a PF device probe causes VF probe (AKA nested
probe).  Each probe in pci_device_probe which is (normally) run through
work_on_cpu (this is to get the right numa node for memory allocated by
the driver).  In turn work_on_cpu does this internally:

        schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
        flush_work(&wfc.work);

So if you are running probe on CPU1, and cause another
probe on the same CPU, this will try to flush
workqueue from inside same workqueue which causes
a lockep warning.

Nested probing might be tricky to get right generally.

But for pci_sriov_enable, the situation is actually very simple: all VFs
naturally have same affinity as the PF, and cpumask_any_and is actually
same as cpumask_first_and, so it always gives us the same CPU.
So let's just detect that, and run the probing for VFs locally without a
workqueue.

This is hardly elegant, but looks to me like an appropriate quick fix
for 3.9.

Tested-by: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

---

Changes from v1:
    - clarified commit log and added Ack by Tejun Heo
      patch is unchanged.

diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
index 1fa1e48..6eeb5ec 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
@@ -286,8 +286,8 @@ static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct pci_dev *dev,
 		int cpu;
 
 		get_online_cpus();
 		cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpumask_of_node(node), cpu_online_mask);
-		if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
+		if (cpu != raw_smp_processor_id() && cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
 			error = work_on_cpu(cpu, local_pci_probe, &ddi);
 		else
 			error = local_pci_probe(&ddi);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists