[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51E3F6EB.2050807@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:49:39 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
CC: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [LOCKDEP] cpufreq: possible circular locking dependency detected
On 07/15/2013 01:59 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (07/15/13 15:52), Michael Wang wrote:
>>>
>>> And may be we could try below patch to get more info, I've moved the timing
>>> of restore stop flag from 'after STOP' to 'before START', I suppose that
>>> could create a window to prevent the work re-queue, it could at least provide
>>> us more info...
>>>
>>> I think I may need to setup a environment for debug now, what's the steps to
>>> produce this WARN?
>>
>> I have done some test, although I failed to reproduce this WARN, but I
>> found that the work is still running and re-queue itself after STOP,
>> even with my prev suggestion...
>>
>> However, enlarge the stop window as my suggestion below, the work do
>> stopped...I suppose it will also stop the first WARN too.
>>
>> Now we need to figure out the reason...
>>
>
> Hello,
>
> WARN is triggered during laptop suspend/hibernate phase.
> I'll test your patch soon.
>
Hi,
I think I finally found out what exactly is going wrong! :-)
I tried reproducing the problem on my machine, and found that the problem
(warning about IPIs to offline CPUs) happens *only* while doing suspend/resume
and not during halt/shutdown/reboot or regular CPU hotplug via sysfs files.
That got me thinking and I finally figured out that commit a66b2e5 is again
the culprit.
So here is the solution:
On 3.11-rc1, apply these patches in the order mentioned below, and check
whether it fixes _all_ problems (both the warnings about IPI as well as the
lockdep splat).
1. Patch given in: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/11/661
(Just apply patch 1, not the entire patchset).
2. Apply the patch shown below, on top of the above patch:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Revert commit 2f7021a to fix CPU hotplug regression
commit 2f7021a (cpufreq: protect 'policy->cpus' from offlining during
__gov_queue_work()) caused a regression in CPU hotplug, because it lead
to a deadlock between cpufreq governor worker thread and the CPU hotplug
writer task.
Lockdep splat corresponding to this deadlock is shown below:
[ 60.277396] ======================================================
[ 60.277400] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 60.277407] 3.10.0-rc7-dbg-01385-g241fd04-dirty #1744 Not tainted
[ 60.277411] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 60.277417] bash/2225 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 60.277422] ((&(&j_cdbs->work)->work)){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff810621b5>] flush_work+0x5/0x280
[ 60.277444] but task is already holding lock:
[ 60.277449] (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81042d8b>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x2b/0x60
[ 60.277465] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 60.277472] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 60.277477] -> #2 (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}:
[ 60.277490] [<ffffffff810ac6d4>] lock_acquire+0xa4/0x200
[ 60.277503] [<ffffffff815b6157>] mutex_lock_nested+0x67/0x410
[ 60.277514] [<ffffffff81042cbc>] get_online_cpus+0x3c/0x60
[ 60.277522] [<ffffffff814b842a>] gov_queue_work+0x2a/0xb0
[ 60.277532] [<ffffffff814b7891>] cs_dbs_timer+0xc1/0xe0
[ 60.277543] [<ffffffff8106302d>] process_one_work+0x1cd/0x6a0
[ 60.277552] [<ffffffff81063d31>] worker_thread+0x121/0x3a0
[ 60.277560] [<ffffffff8106ae2b>] kthread+0xdb/0xe0
[ 60.277569] [<ffffffff815bb96c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 60.277580] -> #1 (&j_cdbs->timer_mutex){+.+...}:
[ 60.277592] [<ffffffff810ac6d4>] lock_acquire+0xa4/0x200
[ 60.277600] [<ffffffff815b6157>] mutex_lock_nested+0x67/0x410
[ 60.277608] [<ffffffff814b785d>] cs_dbs_timer+0x8d/0xe0
[ 60.277616] [<ffffffff8106302d>] process_one_work+0x1cd/0x6a0
[ 60.277624] [<ffffffff81063d31>] worker_thread+0x121/0x3a0
[ 60.277633] [<ffffffff8106ae2b>] kthread+0xdb/0xe0
[ 60.277640] [<ffffffff815bb96c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 60.277649] -> #0 ((&(&j_cdbs->work)->work)){+.+...}:
[ 60.277661] [<ffffffff810ab826>] __lock_acquire+0x1766/0x1d30
[ 60.277669] [<ffffffff810ac6d4>] lock_acquire+0xa4/0x200
[ 60.277677] [<ffffffff810621ed>] flush_work+0x3d/0x280
[ 60.277685] [<ffffffff81062d8a>] __cancel_work_timer+0x8a/0x120
[ 60.277693] [<ffffffff81062e53>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x13/0x20
[ 60.277701] [<ffffffff814b89d9>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x529/0x6f0
[ 60.277709] [<ffffffff814b76a7>] cs_cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x17/0x20
[ 60.277719] [<ffffffff814b5df8>] __cpufreq_governor+0x48/0x100
[ 60.277728] [<ffffffff814b6b80>] __cpufreq_remove_dev.isra.14+0x80/0x3c0
[ 60.277737] [<ffffffff815adc0d>] cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x38/0x4c
[ 60.277747] [<ffffffff81071a4d>] notifier_call_chain+0x5d/0x110
[ 60.277759] [<ffffffff81071b0e>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0xe/0x10
[ 60.277768] [<ffffffff815a0a68>] _cpu_down+0x88/0x330
[ 60.277779] [<ffffffff815a0d46>] cpu_down+0x36/0x50
[ 60.277788] [<ffffffff815a2748>] store_online+0x98/0xd0
[ 60.277796] [<ffffffff81452a28>] dev_attr_store+0x18/0x30
[ 60.277806] [<ffffffff811d9edb>] sysfs_write_file+0xdb/0x150
[ 60.277818] [<ffffffff8116806d>] vfs_write+0xbd/0x1f0
[ 60.277826] [<ffffffff811686fc>] SyS_write+0x4c/0xa0
[ 60.277834] [<ffffffff815bbbbe>] tracesys+0xd0/0xd5
[ 60.277842] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 60.277848] Chain exists of:
(&(&j_cdbs->work)->work) --> &j_cdbs->timer_mutex --> cpu_hotplug.lock
[ 60.277864] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 60.277869] CPU0 CPU1
[ 60.277873] ---- ----
[ 60.277877] lock(cpu_hotplug.lock);
[ 60.277885] lock(&j_cdbs->timer_mutex);
[ 60.277892] lock(cpu_hotplug.lock);
[ 60.277900] lock((&(&j_cdbs->work)->work));
[ 60.277907] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 60.277915] 6 locks held by bash/2225:
[ 60.277919] #0: (sb_writers#6){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81168173>] vfs_write+0x1c3/0x1f0
[ 60.277937] #1: (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811d9e3c>] sysfs_write_file+0x3c/0x150
[ 60.277954] #2: (s_active#61){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff811d9ec3>] sysfs_write_file+0xc3/0x150
[ 60.277972] #3: (x86_cpu_hotplug_driver_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81024cf7>] cpu_hotplug_driver_lock+0x17/0x20
[ 60.277990] #4: (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff815a0d32>] cpu_down+0x22/0x50
[ 60.278007] #5: (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81042d8b>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x2b/0x60
[ 60.278023] stack backtrace:
[ 60.278031] CPU: 3 PID: 2225 Comm: bash Not tainted 3.10.0-rc7-dbg-01385-g241fd04-dirty #1744
[ 60.278037] Hardware name: Acer Aspire 5741G /Aspire 5741G , BIOS V1.20 02/08/2011
[ 60.278042] ffffffff8204e110 ffff88014df6b9f8 ffffffff815b3d90 ffff88014df6ba38
[ 60.278055] ffffffff815b0a8d ffff880150ed3f60 ffff880150ed4770 3871c4002c8980b2
[ 60.278068] ffff880150ed4748 ffff880150ed4770 ffff880150ed3f60 ffff88014df6bb00
[ 60.278081] Call Trace:
[ 60.278091] [<ffffffff815b3d90>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
[ 60.278101] [<ffffffff815b0a8d>] print_circular_bug+0x2b6/0x2c5
[ 60.278111] [<ffffffff810ab826>] __lock_acquire+0x1766/0x1d30
[ 60.278123] [<ffffffff81067e08>] ? __kernel_text_address+0x58/0x80
[ 60.278134] [<ffffffff810ac6d4>] lock_acquire+0xa4/0x200
[ 60.278142] [<ffffffff810621b5>] ? flush_work+0x5/0x280
[ 60.278151] [<ffffffff810621ed>] flush_work+0x3d/0x280
[ 60.278159] [<ffffffff810621b5>] ? flush_work+0x5/0x280
[ 60.278169] [<ffffffff810a9b14>] ? mark_held_locks+0x94/0x140
[ 60.278178] [<ffffffff81062d77>] ? __cancel_work_timer+0x77/0x120
[ 60.278188] [<ffffffff810a9cbd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfd/0x1c0
[ 60.278196] [<ffffffff81062d8a>] __cancel_work_timer+0x8a/0x120
[ 60.278206] [<ffffffff81062e53>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x13/0x20
[ 60.278214] [<ffffffff814b89d9>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x529/0x6f0
[ 60.278225] [<ffffffff814b76a7>] cs_cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x17/0x20
[ 60.278234] [<ffffffff814b5df8>] __cpufreq_governor+0x48/0x100
[ 60.278244] [<ffffffff814b6b80>] __cpufreq_remove_dev.isra.14+0x80/0x3c0
[ 60.278255] [<ffffffff815adc0d>] cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x38/0x4c
[ 60.278265] [<ffffffff81071a4d>] notifier_call_chain+0x5d/0x110
[ 60.278275] [<ffffffff81071b0e>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0xe/0x10
[ 60.278284] [<ffffffff815a0a68>] _cpu_down+0x88/0x330
[ 60.278292] [<ffffffff81024cf7>] ? cpu_hotplug_driver_lock+0x17/0x20
[ 60.278302] [<ffffffff815a0d46>] cpu_down+0x36/0x50
[ 60.278311] [<ffffffff815a2748>] store_online+0x98/0xd0
[ 60.278320] [<ffffffff81452a28>] dev_attr_store+0x18/0x30
[ 60.278329] [<ffffffff811d9edb>] sysfs_write_file+0xdb/0x150
[ 60.278337] [<ffffffff8116806d>] vfs_write+0xbd/0x1f0
[ 60.278347] [<ffffffff81185950>] ? fget_light+0x320/0x4b0
[ 60.278355] [<ffffffff811686fc>] SyS_write+0x4c/0xa0
[ 60.278364] [<ffffffff815bbbbe>] tracesys+0xd0/0xd5
[ 60.280582] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
The intent of this commit was to avoid warnings during CPU hotplug, which
indicated that offline CPUs were getting IPIs from the cpufreq governor's
work items. But the real root-cause of that problem was commit a66b2e5
(cpufreq: Preserve sysfs files across suspend/resume) because it totally
skipped all the cpufreq callbacks during CPU hotplug in the suspend/resume
path, and hence it never actually shut down the cpufreq governor's worker
threads during CPU offline in the suspend/resume path.
Reflecting back, the reason why we never suspected that commit as the
root-cause earlier, was that the original issue was reported with just the
halt command and nobody had brought in suspend/resume to the equation.
The reason for _that_ in turn, it turns out is that, earlier halt/shutdown
was being done by disabling non-boot CPUs while tasks were frozen, just like
suspend/resume.... but commit cf7df378a (reboot: rigrate shutdown/reboot to
boot cpu) which came somewhere along that very same time changed that logic:
shutdown/halt no longer takes CPUs offline.
Thus, the test-cases for reproducing the bug were vastly different and thus
we went totally off the trail.
Overall, it was one hell of a confusion with so many commits affecting
each other and also affecting the symptoms of the problems in subtle
ways. Finally, now since the original problematic commit (a66b2e5) has been
completely reverted, revert this intermediate fix too (2f7021a), to fix the
CPU hotplug deadlock. Phew!
Reported-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Reported-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
index 4645876..7b839a8 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
@@ -25,7 +25,6 @@
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <linux/workqueue.h>
-#include <linux/cpu.h>
#include "cpufreq_governor.h"
@@ -137,10 +136,8 @@ void gov_queue_work(struct dbs_data *dbs_data, struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
if (!all_cpus) {
__gov_queue_work(smp_processor_id(), dbs_data, delay);
} else {
- get_online_cpus();
for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus)
__gov_queue_work(i, dbs_data, delay);
- put_online_cpus();
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gov_queue_work);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists