From: Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
To: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
0day robot <lkp@intel.com>,
lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [driver core] e3b1cb5c89: WARNING:possible_recursive_locking_detected
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 13:07:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200725110733.u6hi2tz3rmvpcy6s@wunner.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200724142950.GG1850@shao2-debian>
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 10:29:50PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> commit: e3b1cb5c896ba748d8f848238c8ea1f89520bde3 ("[PATCH 3/3] driver core: Avoid adding children below a dead parent")
[...]
> [ 1.392584] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> [ 1.393350] 5.8.0-rc3-00011-ge3b1cb5c896ba7 #1 Not tainted
> [ 1.393350] --------------------------------------------
> [ 1.393350] swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 1.393350] ffff88841fc6ff70 (&dev->p->dead_sem){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: __device_attach+0x51/0x1a0
> [ 1.393350]
> [ 1.393350] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 1.393350] ffff888107f42770 (&dev->p->dead_sem){.+.+}-{3:3}, at: device_add+0xf8/0x890
False positive:
__device_attach() takes a device's dead_sem whereas device_add() takes
the *parent's* dead_sem. But lockdep thinks they're the same because
they're in the same lock class.
We would normally see the same lockdep splat for device_lock() but
commit 1704f47b50b5 silenced it by assigning device_lock() to the
novalidate class.
I could silence this lockdep splat by assigning dead_sem to the
novalidate class as well. But I also have an idea how we could
fix it properly by introducing a per-device class for bus_types
that need it and by putting the device_lock, dead_sem etc in
separate subclasses within that per-device class.
Any preference as to which solution I should pursue?
Any thoughts on this series in general?
Does the newly introduced dead_sem evoke approval or rejection?
Anyone?
Thanks,
Lukas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-25 11:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-08 13:27 [PATCH 0/3] Fix races on device removal Lukas Wunner
2020-07-08 13:27 ` [PATCH 1/3] driver core: Avoid binding drivers to dead devices Lukas Wunner
2020-07-08 13:27 ` [PATCH 2/3] driver core: Use rwsem for kill_device() serialization Lukas Wunner
2020-07-30 6:53 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-07-30 9:56 ` Lukas Wunner
2020-07-31 6:45 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-07-31 9:53 ` Lukas Wunner
2020-07-08 13:27 ` [PATCH 3/3] driver core: Avoid adding children below a dead parent Lukas Wunner
2020-07-24 14:29 ` [driver core] e3b1cb5c89: WARNING:possible_recursive_locking_detected kernel test robot
2020-07-25 11:07 ` Lukas Wunner [this message]
2020-07-30 6:54 ` [PATCH 0/3] Fix races on device removal Greg Kroah-Hartman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200725110733.u6hi2tz3rmvpcy6s@wunner.de \
--to=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rong.a.chen@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).