[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210120135243.cztbdfbdy6qzlevw@e107158-lin>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:52:43 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: hrtimer_interrupt::pr_warn_once() causes BUG: Invalid wait
context
On 01/14/21 12:45, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Hi
>
> I hit this splat today
>
> # [67628.388606] hrtimer: interrupt took 304720 ns
> [67628.393546]
> [67628.393550] =============================
> [67628.393554] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
> [67628.393557] 5.11.0-rc3-00019-g86be331946f7 #37 Not tainted
> [67628.393560] -----------------------------
> [67628.393563] sugov:0/192 is trying to lock:
> [67628.393566] ffff000800b1d898 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}-{3:3}, at: pl011_console_write+0x138/0x218
> [67628.393581] other info that might help us debug this:
> [67628.393584] context-{2:2}
> [67628.393586] 4 locks held by sugov:0/192:
> [67628.393589] #0: ffff0008059cb720 (&sg_policy->work_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: sugov_work+0x58/0x88
> [67628.393603] #1: ffff800015446f20 (prepare_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: clk_prepare_lock+0x34/0xb0
> [67628.393618] #2: ffff8000152aaa60 (console_lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: vprintk_emit+0x12c/0x310
> [67628.393632] #3: ffff8000152aab88 (console_owner){-.-.}-{0:0}, at: console_unlock+0x190/0x6d8
> [67628.393646] stack backtrace:
> [67628.393649] CPU: 0 PID: 192 Comm: sugov:0 Not tainted 5.11.0-rc3-00019-g86be331946f7 #37
> [67628.393653] Hardware name: ARM Juno development board (r2) (DT)
> [67628.393656] Call trace:
> [67628.393659] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1b0
> [67628.393661] show_stack+0x20/0x70
> [67628.393664] dump_stack+0xf8/0x168
> [67628.393666] __lock_acquire+0x964/0x1c88
> [67628.393669] lock_acquire+0x26c/0x500
> [67628.393671] _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x88
> [67628.393674] pl011_console_write+0x138/0x218
> [67628.393677] console_unlock+0x2c4/0x6d8
> [67628.393680] vprintk_emit+0x134/0x310
> [67628.393682] vprintk_default+0x40/0x50
> [67628.393685] vprintk_func+0xfc/0x2b0
> [67628.393687] printk+0x68/0x90
> [67628.393690] hrtimer_interrupt+0x24c/0x250
> [67628.393693] arch_timer_handler_phys+0x3c/0x50
> [67628.393695] handle_percpu_devid_irq+0xd8/0x460
> [67628.393698] generic_handle_irq+0x38/0x50
> [67628.393701] __handle_domain_irq+0x6c/0xc8
> [67628.393704] gic_handle_irq+0xb0/0xf0
> [67628.393706] el1_irq+0xb4/0x180
> [67628.393709] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x58/0xa8
> [67628.393712] hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x1b0/0x420
> [67628.393715] msg_submit+0x100/0x108
> [67628.393717] mbox_send_message+0x84/0x128
> [67628.393720] scpi_send_message+0x11c/0x2a8
> [67628.393723] scpi_dvfs_set_idx+0x48/0x70
> [67628.393726] scpi_dvfs_set_rate+0x60/0x78
> [67628.393728] clk_change_rate+0x184/0x8a8
> [67628.393731] clk_core_set_rate_nolock+0x1c0/0x280
> [67628.393734] clk_set_rate+0x40/0x98
> [67628.393736] scpi_cpufreq_set_target+0x40/0x68
> [67628.393739] __cpufreq_driver_target+0x1a0/0x5d0
>
> AFAICT the call to pr_warn_once() is how we end up here. Not sure if there's an
> appropriate or easy fix for that.
Oh I just accidentally came across printk_deferred_once() which looks like the
right thing to do. I can't reproduce but I'll send a patch over the weekend to
see if anyone will complain why it shouldn't work.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists