[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <501708a0f23b9d0a0dd63b38e03bf620f5018e35.1597089543.git.mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 22:09:21 +0200
From: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/3] regulator: allocate memory outside of regulator_list
mutex
Allocating memory with regulator_list_mutex held makes lockdep unhappy
when memory pressure makes the system do fs_reclaim on eg. eMMC using
a regulator. Push the lock inside regulator_init_coupling() after the
allocation.
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.7.13+ #533 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kswapd0/383 is trying to acquire lock:
cca78ca4 (&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: __submit_merged_write_cond+0x104/0x154
but task is already holding lock:
c0e38518 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x50
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
fs_reclaim_acquire.part.11+0x40/0x50
fs_reclaim_acquire+0x24/0x28
__kmalloc+0x54/0x218
regulator_register+0x860/0x1584
dummy_regulator_probe+0x60/0xa8
[...]
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_rwsem --> regulator_list_mutex --> fs_reclaim
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(regulator_list_mutex);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_rwsem);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by kswapd0/383:
#0: c0e38518 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x50
[...]
Fixes: d8ca7d184b33 ("regulator: core: Introduce API for regulators coupling customization")
Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
---
drivers/regulator/core.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index 2ee109950352..915a727d8fc7 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -4900,7 +4900,7 @@ static void regulator_remove_coupling(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
static int regulator_init_coupling(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
{
struct regulator_dev **coupled;
- int err, n_phandles;
+ int err = 0, n_phandles;
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF))
n_phandles = 0;
@@ -4911,6 +4911,7 @@ static int regulator_init_coupling(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
if (!coupled)
return -ENOMEM;
+ mutex_lock(®ulator_list_mutex);
rdev->coupling_desc.coupled_rdevs = coupled;
/*
@@ -4923,19 +4924,21 @@ static int regulator_init_coupling(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
/* regulator isn't coupled */
if (n_phandles == 0)
- return 0;
+ goto out;
- if (!of_check_coupling_data(rdev))
- return -EPERM;
+ if (!of_check_coupling_data(rdev)) {
+ err = -EPERM;
+ goto out;
+ }
rdev->coupling_desc.coupler = regulator_find_coupler(rdev);
if (IS_ERR(rdev->coupling_desc.coupler)) {
err = PTR_ERR(rdev->coupling_desc.coupler);
rdev_err(rdev, "failed to get coupler: %d\n", err);
- return err;
}
-
- return 0;
+out:
+ mutex_unlock(®ulator_list_mutex);
+ return err;
}
static int generic_coupler_attach(struct regulator_coupler *coupler,
@@ -5135,9 +5138,7 @@ regulator_register(const struct regulator_desc *regulator_desc,
if (ret < 0)
goto wash;
- mutex_lock(®ulator_list_mutex);
ret = regulator_init_coupling(rdev);
- mutex_unlock(®ulator_list_mutex);
if (ret < 0)
goto wash;
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists