linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] soc/tegra: pmc: Fix "scheduling while atomic"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d7a01310-869e-197e-9fbe-5b4783629e10@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 May 2016 17:57:51 +0300
From:	Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
	Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@...dia.com>,
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc/tegra: pmc: Fix "scheduling while atomic"

On 26.05.2016 17:32, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> On 26/05/16 12:42, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 26.05.2016 11:42, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/05/16 19:51, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> On 25.05.2016 18:09, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> If you are able to reproduce this on v3.18, then it would be good if
>>>>> you
>>>>> could trace the CCF calls around this WARNING to see what is causing
>>>>> the
>>>>> contention.
>>>>
>>>> I managed to reproduce it with some CCF "tracing".
>>>> Full kmsg log is here: https://bpaste.net/show/d8ab7b7534b7
>>>>
>>>> Looks like CPU freq governor thread yields during clk_set_rate() and
>>>> then CPU idle kicks in, taking the same mutex.
>>>
>>> On the surface that sounds odd to me, but without understanding the
>>> details, I guess I don't know if this is a valid thing to be doing or
>>> even how that actually works!
>>>
>>
>> The reason of that happening should be that I'm using clk PRE/POST rate
>> change notifiers in my DVFS driver that takes other mutexes and they
>> could be locked, causing schedule. I haven't mentioned it before, sorry.
>
> OK, but I am not sure how these "other mutexes" would be relevant here
> without any more details.
>
>> From drivers/clk/clk.c:
>>
>> static struct task_struct *prepare_owner;
>>
>> ...
>>
>> /***           locking             ***/
>> static void clk_prepare_lock(void)
>> {
>>     if (!mutex_trylock(&prepare_lock)) {
>>         if (prepare_owner == current) {
>>             prepare_refcnt++;
>>             return;
>>         }
>>         mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
>>     }
>>
>> You can see that it would lock the mutex if prepare_owner != current, in
>> my case it's idle thread != interactive gov. thread.
>
> Right, but that would imply that someone else is actively doing
> something with a clock. However, if we are entering LP2, then that
> implies that all CPUs are idle and so I still don't understand the
> scenario where this would be locked in that case. May be there is
> something I am overlooking here?
>
>>>> However, cpufreq_interactive governor is android specific governor and
>>>> isn't in upstream kernel yet. Quick googling shows that recent
>>>> "upstreaming" patch uses same cpufreq_interactive_speedchange_task:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/20/41
>>>
>>> Do you know if this version they are upstreaming could also yield during
>>> the clk_set_rate()?
>>>
>>
>> I think it should be assumed that any clk_set_rate() potentially could.
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>>>> I'm not aware of other possibility to reproduce this issue, it needs
>>>> some CCF interaction from a separate task. So the current upstream
>>>> kernel shouldn't be affected, I guess.
>>>
>>> What still does not make sense to me is why any frequency changes have
>>> not completed before we attempt to enter the LP2 state?
>>>
>> Why not? I don't see any CPUIDLE <-> CPUFREQ interlocking. Do you think
>> it could be harmful somehow?
>
> Like I said before, I still don't understand that scenario that is
> causing this and without being able to fully understand it, I have no
> idea what the exact problem we are trying to fix here is.
>

That's how I see it:

+----------------------------------------------+
|                    CPU 0                     |
+-------------------+--------------------------+
|    Idle thread    | Interactive gov. thread  |
+----------------------------------------------+
|     inactive      |                          |
|                   |                          |
|                   |   CPU freq. change       |
|                   |                          |
|                   |   clk_set_rate()         |
|                   |                          |
|       ...         |   clk_prepare_lock()     |
|                   |                          |
|                   |   PRE rate notifier call |
|                   |                          |
|                   |   schedule               |
|                   |                          |
| irqs_disable()    |                          |
|                   |                          |
| enter CPU idle    |                          |
|                   |                          |
| clk_get_rate(pclk)|                          |
|                   |                          |
| clk_prepare_lock()|                          |
|                   |                          |
| schedule bug()    |                          |
|                   |                          |
+-------------------+--------------------------+

-- 
Dmitry