[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VebQfdHrfYTmF0w9M556ZV8fG5jJ2rAN5a3mrB1mbvOQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 11:03:55 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, kernel@...s.com,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: buffer: Silence lock nesting splat
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 1:30 PM Vincent Whitchurch
<vincent.whitchurch@...s.com> wrote:
>
> If an IIO driver uses callbacks from another IIO driver and calls
> iio_channel_start_all_cb() from one of its buffer setup ops, then
> lockdep complains due to the lock nesting, as in the below example with
> lmp91000. Since the locks are being taken on different IIO devices,
> there is no actual deadlock, so add lock nesting annotation to silence
> the spurious warning.
>
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> 6.0.0-rc1+ #10 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> python3/23 is trying to acquire lock:
> 0000000064c944c0 (&indio_dev->mlock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: iio_update_buffers+0x62/0x180
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> 00000000636b64c0 (&indio_dev->mlock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: enable_store+0x4d/0x100
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
> lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> 5 locks held by python3/23:
> #0: 00000000636b5420 (sb_writers#5){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x67/0x100
> #1: 0000000064c19280 (&of->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x13a/0x270
> #2: 0000000064c3d9e0 (kn->active#14){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x149/0x270
> #3: 00000000636b64c0 (&indio_dev->mlock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: enable_store+0x4d/0x100
> #4: 0000000064c945c8 (&iio_dev_opaque->info_exist_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: iio_update_buffers+0x4f/0x180
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 23 Comm: python3 Not tainted 6.0.0-rc1+ #10
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x1a/0x1c
> __lock_acquire.cold+0x407/0x42d
> lock_acquire+0x1ed/0x310
> __mutex_lock+0x72/0xde0
> mutex_lock_nested+0x1d/0x20
> iio_update_buffers+0x62/0x180
> iio_channel_start_all_cb+0x1c/0x20 [industrialio_buffer_cb]
> lmp91000_buffer_postenable+0x1b/0x20 [lmp91000]
> __iio_update_buffers+0x50b/0xd80
> enable_store+0x81/0x100
> dev_attr_store+0xf/0x20
> sysfs_kf_write+0x4c/0x70
> kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x179/0x270
> new_sync_write+0x99/0x120
> vfs_write+0x2c1/0x470
> ksys_write+0x67/0x100
> sys_write+0x10/0x20
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#backtraces-in-commit-mesages
On top of that, Fixes tag?
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists