linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:56:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201102085658.GA5506@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201102073328.GA9930@xps-13-7390>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3492 bytes --]

Hi!

> > > I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below).
> > > 
> > > Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying:
> > > 
> > >  e918188611f0 ("locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()")
> > > 
> > > It looks like a false positive to me, but it made me think a bit and
> > > IIUC there can be still a potential deadlock, even if the deadlock
> > > scenario is a bit different than what lockdep is showing.
> > > 
> > > In the assumption that read-locks are recursive only in_interrupt()
> > > context (as stated in e918188611f0), the following scenario can still
> > > happen:
> > > 
> > >  CPU0                                     CPU1
> > >  ----                                     ----
> > >  read_lock(&trig->leddev_list_lock);
> > >                                           write_lock(&trig->leddev_list_lock);
> > >  <soft-irq>
> > >  kbd_bh()
> > >    -> read_lock(&trig->leddev_list_lock);
> > > 
> > >  *** DEADLOCK ***
> > > 
> > > The write-lock is waiting on CPU1 and the second read_lock() on CPU0
> > > would be blocked by the write-lock *waiter* on CPU1 => deadlock.
> > > 
> > 
> > No, this is not a deadlock, as a write-lock waiter only blocks
> > *non-recursive* readers, so since the read_lock() in kbd_bh() is called
> > in soft-irq (which in_interrupt() returns true), so it's a recursive
> > reader and won't get blocked by the write-lock waiter.
> 
> That's right, I was missing that in_interrupt() returns true also from
> soft-irq context.
> 
> > > In that case we could prevent this deadlock condition using a workqueue
> > > to call kbd_propagate_led_state() instead of calling it directly from
> > > kbd_bh() (even if lockdep would still report the false positive).
> > > 
> > 
> > The deadlock senario reported by the following splat is:
> > 
> > 	
> > 	CPU 0:				CPU 1:					CPU 2:
> > 	-----				-----					-----
> > 	led_trigger_event():
> > 	  read_lock(&trig->leddev_list_lock);
> > 					<work queue processing>
> > 	  				ata_hsm_qs_complete():
> > 					  spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock);
> > 					  					write_lock(&trig->leddev_list_lock);
> > 					  ata_port_freeze():
> > 					    ata_do_link_abort():
> > 					      ata_qc_complete():
> > 					        ledtrig_disk_activity():
> > 						  led_trigger_blink_oneshot():
> > 						    read_lock(&trig->leddev_list_lock);
> > 						    // ^ not in in_interrupt() context, so could get blocked by CPU 2
> > 	<interrupt>
> > 	  ata_bmdma_interrupt():
> > 	    spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock);
> > 	  
> > , where CPU 0 is blocked by CPU 1 because of the spin_lock_irqsave() in
> > ata_bmdma_interrupt() and CPU 1 is blocked by CPU 2 because of the
> > read_lock() in led_trigger_blink_oneshot() and CPU 2 is blocked by CPU 0
> > because of an arbitrary writer on &trig->leddev_list_lock.
> > 
> > So I don't think it's false positive, but I might miss something
> > obvious, because I don't know what the code here actually does ;-)
> 
> With the CPU2 part it all makes sense now and lockdep was right. :)
> 
> At this point I think we could just schedule a separate work to do the
> led trigger and avoid calling it with host->lock held and that should
> prevent the deadlock. I'll send a patch to do that.

Let's... not do that, unless we have no choice.

Would it help if leddev_list_lock used _irqsave() locking?

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-02  8:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-01  9:26 Andrea Righi
2020-10-31 10:17 ` Boqun Feng
2020-11-02  7:33   ` Andrea Righi
2020-11-02  8:56     ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2020-11-02  9:09       ` Andrea Righi
2020-11-06  7:40         ` Andrea Righi
2020-11-01 16:28 ` Pavel Machek
2020-11-02  7:39   ` Andrea Righi

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=20201102085658.GA5506@amd \
    --to=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=andrea.righi@canonical.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)' \
    /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

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).