[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190918075252.GA30808@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 16:52:52 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Regression in dbdda842fe96 ("printk: Add console owner and
waiter logic to load balance console writes") [Was: Regression in
fd5f7cde1b85 ("...")]
On (09/18/19 09:11), Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I rechecked and indeed fd5f7cde1b85's parent has the problem, too, so I
> did a mistake during my bisection :-|
>
> Redoing the bisection (a bit quicker this time) points to
>
> dbdda842fe96 ("printk: Add console owner and waiter logic to load balance console writes")
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
No worries!
[..]
> > So I'd say that lockdep is correct, but there are several hacks which
> > prevent actual deadlock.
>
> Just to make sure, I got you right: With the way lockdep works it is
> right to assume there is a problem, but in fact there isn't?
I'd probably say so... Unless I'm missing something.
sysrq-over-serial is handled from the serial driver's IRQ handler,
under serial driver's port->lock. sysrq handling calls printk(), which
takes console_sem/owner and re-enters the serial driver via ->write()
callback.
So lockdep sees a reverse locking pattern: port->lock goes before
console_sem/owner, which is not the usual order.
> This is IMHO unfortunate because such false positives reduces the
> usefulness of lockdep considerably. :-|
I agree.
port->sysrq state is global to uart port. IOW, if CPUA sets port->sysrq
then all printk->write() paths (from any other CPU) become lockless.
This makes me wonder is we really need to hold port->lock for
uart_handle_sysrq_char(). I sort of doubt it...
Can you try the following patch? It's against linux-next, I guess
you can backport to your kernel.
The basic idea is to handle sysrq out of port->lock.
I didn't test it all (not even sure if it compiles).
---
drivers/tty/serial/imx.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
index 87c58f9f6390..f0dd807b52df 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/imx.c
@@ -731,9 +731,9 @@ static irqreturn_t imx_uart_rxint(int irq, void *dev_id)
struct imx_port *sport = dev_id;
unsigned int rx, flg, ignored = 0;
struct tty_port *port = &sport->port.state->port;
+ unsigned long flags;
- spin_lock(&sport->port.lock);
-
+ uart_port_lock_irqsave(&sport->port, flags);
while (imx_uart_readl(sport, USR2) & USR2_RDR) {
u32 usr2;
@@ -749,8 +749,8 @@ static irqreturn_t imx_uart_rxint(int irq, void *dev_id)
continue;
}
- if (uart_handle_sysrq_char(&sport->port, (unsigned char)rx))
- continue;
+ if (uart_prepare_sysrq_char(&sport->port, (unsigned char)rx))
+ break;
if (unlikely(rx & URXD_ERR)) {
if (rx & URXD_BRK)
@@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ static irqreturn_t imx_uart_rxint(int irq, void *dev_id)
}
out:
- spin_unlock(&sport->port.lock);
+ uart_unlock_and_check_sysrq(&sport->port, flags);
tty_flip_buffer_push(port);
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists