RE: [PATCH 1/6] ACPI/EC: Introduce STARTED/STOPPED flags to replace BLOCKED flag.

["Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@intel.com>]

Hi, All

It's my fault.
I didn't add ACPI_GPE_HANDLER_RAW flag in ec.c to enable this fix.
Sorry for the noise.
Let me post the updated [RFC PATCH 2] for you to confirm.

Thanks
-Lv

> From: Zheng, Lv
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 8:43 AM
> 
> Hi, Shutemov
> 
> > From: Kirill A. Shutemov [mailto:kirill@shutemov.name]
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 5:34 AM
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 02:20:53AM +0000, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > > Since you have environment to trigger this.
> > > Could you also help to check if the fix can work?
> > > I've just sent them as RFC to this thread.
> >
> > With these two patchse on top of my -next snapshot I still see the issue:
> >
> > [    0.324119] ======================================================
> > [    0.324125] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > [    0.324132] 3.18.0-rc5-next-20141119-07477-g4c45e54745b2 #80 Not tainted
> > [    0.324138] -------------------------------------------------------
> > [    0.324144] swapper/3/0 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [    0.324149]  (&(&ec->lock)->rlock){-.....}, at: [<ffffffff814cb803>] acpi_ec_gpe_handler+0x21/0xfc
> > [    0.324165]
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > [    0.324171]  (&(*(&acpi_gbl_gpe_lock))->rlock){-.....}, at: [<ffffffff814c3b3e>] acpi_os_acquire_lock+0xe/0x10
> > [    0.324185]
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> > [    0.324193]
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [    0.324200]
> > -> #1 (&(*(&acpi_gbl_gpe_lock))->rlock){-.....}:
> > [    0.324209]        [<ffffffff81158f0f>] lock_acquire+0xdf/0x2d0
> > [    0.324218]        [<ffffffff81b004c0>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x70
> > [    0.324228]        [<ffffffff814c3b3e>] acpi_os_acquire_lock+0xe/0x10
> > [    0.324235]        [<ffffffff814d9945>] acpi_enable_gpe+0x27/0x75
> > [    0.324244]        [<ffffffff814cc960>] acpi_ec_start+0x67/0x88
> > [    0.324251]        [<ffffffff81af4ca9>] ec_install_handlers+0x41/0xa4
> > [    0.324258]        [<ffffffff823e4134>] acpi_ec_ecdt_probe+0x1a9/0x1ea
> > [    0.324267]        [<ffffffff823e395e>] acpi_init+0x8b/0x26e
> > [    0.324275]        [<ffffffff81002148>] do_one_initcall+0xd8/0x210
> > [    0.324283]        [<ffffffff8239c1dc>] kernel_init_freeable+0x1f5/0x282
> > [    0.324293]        [<ffffffff81aea0fe>] kernel_init+0xe/0xf0
> > [    0.324300]        [<ffffffff81b011bc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> > [    0.324307]
> > -> #0 (&(&ec->lock)->rlock){-.....}:
> > [    0.324315]        [<ffffffff811585af>] __lock_acquire+0x210f/0x2220
> > [    0.324323]        [<ffffffff81158f0f>] lock_acquire+0xdf/0x2d0
> > [    0.324330]        [<ffffffff81b004c0>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x70
> > [    0.324338]        [<ffffffff814cb803>] acpi_ec_gpe_handler+0x21/0xfc
> > [    0.324346]        [<ffffffff814d68e0>] acpi_ev_gpe_dispatch+0xb9/0x12e
> > [    0.324353]        [<ffffffff814d6a5a>] acpi_ev_gpe_detect+0x105/0x227
> > [    0.324360]        [<ffffffff814d8af5>] acpi_ev_sci_xrupt_handler+0x22/0x38
> > [    0.324368]        [<ffffffff814c2dae>] acpi_irq+0x16/0x31
> > [    0.324375]        [<ffffffff8116ecbf>] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x6f/0x540
> > [    0.324384]        [<ffffffff8116f1d1>] handle_irq_event+0x41/0x70
> > [    0.324392]        [<ffffffff81171ee6>] handle_fasteoi_irq+0x86/0x140
> > [    0.324399]        [<ffffffff81075a22>] handle_irq+0x22/0x40
> > [    0.324408]        [<ffffffff81b0436f>] do_IRQ+0x4f/0xf0
> > [    0.324416]        [<ffffffff81b02072>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x1a
> > [    0.324423]        [<ffffffff8107e7a3>] default_idle+0x23/0x260
> > [    0.324430]        [<ffffffff8107f37f>] arch_cpu_idle+0xf/0x20
> > [    0.324438]        [<ffffffff8114a95b>] cpu_startup_entry+0x36b/0x5b0
> > [    0.324445]        [<ffffffff810a8d24>] start_secondary+0x1a4/0x1d0
> > [    0.324454]
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> > [    0.324462]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> > [    0.324468]        CPU0                    CPU1
> > [    0.324473]        ----                    ----
> > [    0.324477]   lock(&(*(&acpi_gbl_gpe_lock))->rlock);
> > [    0.324483]                                lock(&(&ec->lock)->rlock);
> > [    0.324490]                                lock(&(*(&acpi_gbl_gpe_lock))->rlock);
> > [    0.324498]   lock(&(&ec->lock)->rlock);
> > [    0.324503]
> 
> Let me convert this into call stack:
> 	CPU0			 			CPU1
> 	 acpi_irq
> +GPE		acpi_ev_gpe_dispatch
> 							acpi_bus_init
> 								acpi_ec_ecdt_probe
> 									acpi_install_gpe_handler()
> 						+EC			acpi_ec_start
> 						+GPE				acpi_enable_gpe
> 						-GPE
> 						-EC
> +EC			acpi_ec_gpe_handler
> -EC
> -GPE
> 
> I used + to indicate spin_lock() and - to indicate spin_unlock().
> GPE to indicate acpi_gbl_gpe_lock, EC to indicate ec->lock.
> 
> Are you sure you still can see this?
> Please help to check the [RFC PATCH 2] to see if the following code is exactly applied:
> +						/*
> +						 * There is no protection around the namespace node
> +						 * and the GPE handler to ensure a safe destruction
> +						 * because:
> +						 * 1. The namespace node is expected to always
> +						 *    exist after loading a table.
> +						 * 2. The GPE handler is expected to be flushed by
> +						 *    acpi_os_wait_events_complete() before the
> +						 *    destruction.
> +						 */
> +						acpi_os_release_lock
> +						    (acpi_gbl_gpe_lock, flags);
> +						int_status |=
> +						    gpe_handler_info->
> +						    address(gpe_device,
> +							    gpe_number,
> +							    gpe_handler_info->
> +							    context);
> 
> This is where acpi_ec_gpe_handler() will be invoked.
> 
> +						flags =
> +						    acpi_os_acquire_lock
> +						    (acpi_gbl_gpe_lock);
> 
> So when acpi_ec_gpe_handler() is invoked, GPE lock is release.
> There should be no reason you can see this warning, because the call stack will be:
> 
> 	CPU0			 			CPU1
> 	CPU0			 			CPU1
> 	 acpi_irq
> +GPE		acpi_ev_gpe_dispatch
> 							acpi_bus_init
> 								acpi_ec_ecdt_probe
> 									acpi_install_gpe_handler()
> 						+EC			acpi_ec_start
> 						+GPE				acpi_enable_gpe
> 						-GPE
> 						-EC
> -GPE
> +EC			acpi_ec_gpe_handler
> -EC
> +GPE
> -GPE
> 
> When acpi_ec_gpe_handler() is invoked, there is no acpi_gbl_gpe_lock locked.
> So I really cannot understand your test result.
> Could you confirm this again?
> 
> Maybe I just don't understand how this warning is generated, and this is just a kind of warning that we can ignore.
> Let me ask Peter and Ingo to check if this is just a limitation of lockdep.
> 
> Thanks and best regards
> -Lv
> 
> >  *** DEADLOCK ***
> >
> > [    0.324510] 1 lock held by swapper/3/0:
> > [    0.324514]  #0:  (&(*(&acpi_gbl_gpe_lock))->rlock){-.....}, at: [<ffffffff814c3b3e>] acpi_os_acquire_lock+0xe/0x10
> > [    0.324528]
> > stack backtrace:
> > [    0.324535] CPU: 3 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/3 Not tainted 3.18.0-rc5-next-20141119-07477-g4c45e54745b2 #80
> > [    0.324543] Hardware name: LENOVO 3460CC6/3460CC6, BIOS G6ET93WW (2.53 ) 02/04/2013
> > [    0.324550]  ffffffff82cae120 ffff88011e2c3ba8 ffffffff81af484e 0000000000000011
> > [    0.324560]  ffffffff82cae120 ffff88011e2c3bf8 ffffffff81af3361 0000000000000001
> > [    0.324569]  ffff88011e2c3c58 ffff88011e2c3bf8 ffff8801193f92b0 ffff8801193f9b00
> > [    0.324579] Call Trace:
> > [    0.324582]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff81af484e>] dump_stack+0x4c/0x6e
> > [    0.324593]  [<ffffffff81af3361>] print_circular_bug+0x2b2/0x2c3
> > [    0.324601]  [<ffffffff811585af>] __lock_acquire+0x210f/0x2220
> > [    0.324609]  [<ffffffff81158f0f>] lock_acquire+0xdf/0x2d0
> > [    0.324616]  [<ffffffff814cb803>] ? acpi_ec_gpe_handler+0x21/0xfc
> > [    0.324624]  [<ffffffff81b004c0>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x50/0x70
> > [    0.324631]  [<ffffffff814cb803>] ? acpi_ec_gpe_handler+0x21/0xfc
> > [    0.324640]  [<ffffffff814e08f7>] ? acpi_hw_write+0x4b/0x52
> > [    0.324646]  [<ffffffff814cb803>] acpi_ec_gpe_handler+0x21/0xfc
> > [    0.324653]  [<ffffffff814d68e0>] acpi_ev_gpe_dispatch+0xb9/0x12e
> > [    0.324660]  [<ffffffff814d6a5a>] acpi_ev_gpe_detect+0x105/0x227
> > [    0.324668]  [<ffffffff814d8af5>] acpi_ev_sci_xrupt_handler+0x22/0x38
> > [    0.324675]  [<ffffffff814c2dae>] acpi_irq+0x16/0x31
> > [    0.324683]  [<ffffffff8116ecbf>] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x6f/0x540
> > [    0.324691]  [<ffffffff8116f1d1>] handle_irq_event+0x41/0x70
> > [    0.324698]  [<ffffffff81171e88>] ? handle_fasteoi_irq+0x28/0x140
> > [    0.324705]  [<ffffffff81171ee6>] handle_fasteoi_irq+0x86/0x140
> > [    0.324712]  [<ffffffff81075a22>] handle_irq+0x22/0x40
> > [    0.324719]  [<ffffffff81b0436f>] do_IRQ+0x4f/0xf0
> > [    0.324725]  [<ffffffff81b02072>] common_interrupt+0x72/0x72
> > [    0.324731]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff810b8986>] ? native_safe_halt+0x6/0x10
> > [    0.324743]  [<ffffffff81154efd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> > [    0.324750]  [<ffffffff8107e7a3>] default_idle+0x23/0x260
> > [    0.324757]  [<ffffffff8107f37f>] arch_cpu_idle+0xf/0x20
> > [    0.324763]  [<ffffffff8114a95b>] cpu_startup_entry+0x36b/0x5b0
> > [    0.324771]  [<ffffffff810a8d24>] start_secondary+0x1a4/0x1d0
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks and best regards
> > > -Lv
> > >
> > > > From: Kirill A. Shutemov [mailto:kirill@shutemov.name]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:16 PM
> > > > To: Rafael J. Wysocki
> > > > Cc: Zheng, Lv; Wysocki, Rafael J; Brown, Len; Lv Zheng; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ACPI/EC: Introduce STARTED/STOPPED flags to replace BLOCKED flag.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:20:11PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 03:23:28 PM Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 02:52:36AM +0000, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [cut]
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's lockdep warning I see on -next:
> > > > >
> > > > > Is patch [1/6] sufficient to trigger this or do you need all [1-4/6]?
> > > >
> > > > I only saw it on -next. I've tried to apply patches directly on -rc5 and
> > > > don't see the warning. I don't have time for proper bisecting, sorry.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >  Kirill A. Shutemov
> >
> > --
> >  Kirill A. Shutemov