All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Tushar Dave <tushar.n.dave@intel.com>,
	Aaron Brown <aaron.f.brown@intel.com>,
	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>
Subject: [BUG] e1000: possible deadlock scenario caught by lockdep
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:27:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1321579620.3533.29.camel@frodo> (raw)

I hit the following lockdep splat:

======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.2.0-rc2-test+ #14
-------------------------------------------------------
reboot/2316 is trying to acquire lock:
 ((&(&adapter->watchdog_task)->work)){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81069553>] wait_on_work+0x0/0xac

but task is already holding lock:
 (&adapter->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81359b1d>] __e1000_shutdown+0x56/0x1f5

which lock already depends on the new lock.


the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&adapter->mutex){+.+...}:
       [<ffffffff8108261a>] lock_acquire+0x103/0x158
       [<ffffffff8150bcf3>] __mutex_lock_common+0x6a/0x441
       [<ffffffff8150c13d>] mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x1d
       [<ffffffff81359288>] e1000_watchdog+0x56/0x4a4
       [<ffffffff8106a1b0>] process_one_work+0x1ef/0x3e0
       [<ffffffff8106b4e0>] worker_thread+0xda/0x15e
       [<ffffffff8106f00e>] kthread+0x9f/0xa7
       [<ffffffff81514e84>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10

-> #0 ((&(&adapter->watchdog_task)->work)){+.+...}:
       [<ffffffff81081e4a>] __lock_acquire+0xa29/0xd06
       [<ffffffff8108261a>] lock_acquire+0x103/0x158
       [<ffffffff81069590>] wait_on_work+0x3d/0xac
       [<ffffffff8106a616>] __cancel_work_timer+0xb9/0xff
       [<ffffffff8106a66e>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x12/0x14
       [<ffffffff81355c8f>] e1000_down_and_stop+0x2e/0x4a
       [<ffffffff813581ed>] e1000_down+0x116/0x176
       [<ffffffff81359b4a>] __e1000_shutdown+0x83/0x1f5
       [<ffffffff81359cd6>] e1000_shutdown+0x1a/0x43
       [<ffffffff8126fdad>] pci_device_shutdown+0x29/0x3d
       [<ffffffff8130c601>] device_shutdown+0xbe/0xf9
       [<ffffffff81065b17>] kernel_restart_prepare+0x31/0x38
       [<ffffffff81065b32>] kernel_restart+0x14/0x51
       [<ffffffff81065cd8>] sys_reboot+0x157/0x1b0
       [<ffffffff81513882>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

other info that might help us debug this:

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&adapter->mutex);
                               lock((&(&adapter->watchdog_task)->work));
                               lock(&adapter->mutex);
  lock((&(&adapter->watchdog_task)->work));

 *** DEADLOCK ***

2 locks held by reboot/2316:
 #0:  (reboot_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81065c20>] sys_reboot+0x9f/0x1b0
 #1:  (&adapter->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81359b1d>] __e1000_shutdown+0x56/0x1f5

stack backtrace:
Pid: 2316, comm: reboot Not tainted 3.2.0-rc2-test+ #14
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff81503eb2>] print_circular_bug+0x1f8/0x209
 [<ffffffff81081e4a>] __lock_acquire+0xa29/0xd06
 [<ffffffff81069553>] ? wait_on_cpu_work+0x94/0x94
 [<ffffffff8108261a>] lock_acquire+0x103/0x158
 [<ffffffff81069553>] ? wait_on_cpu_work+0x94/0x94
 [<ffffffff810c7caf>] ? trace_preempt_on+0x2a/0x2f
 [<ffffffff81069590>] wait_on_work+0x3d/0xac
 [<ffffffff81069553>] ? wait_on_cpu_work+0x94/0x94
 [<ffffffff8106a616>] __cancel_work_timer+0xb9/0xff
 [<ffffffff8106a66e>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x12/0x14
 [<ffffffff81355c8f>] e1000_down_and_stop+0x2e/0x4a
 [<ffffffff813581ed>] e1000_down+0x116/0x176
 [<ffffffff81359b4a>] __e1000_shutdown+0x83/0x1f5
 [<ffffffff8150d51c>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x33/0x56
 [<ffffffff8130c583>] ? device_shutdown+0x40/0xf9
 [<ffffffff81359cd6>] e1000_shutdown+0x1a/0x43
 [<ffffffff81510757>] ? sub_preempt_count+0xa1/0xb4
 [<ffffffff8126fdad>] pci_device_shutdown+0x29/0x3d
 [<ffffffff8130c601>] device_shutdown+0xbe/0xf9
 [<ffffffff81065b17>] kernel_restart_prepare+0x31/0x38
 [<ffffffff81065b32>] kernel_restart+0x14/0x51
 [<ffffffff81065cd8>] sys_reboot+0x157/0x1b0
 [<ffffffff81072ccb>] ? hrtimer_cancel+0x17/0x24
 [<ffffffff8150c304>] ? do_nanosleep+0x74/0xac
 [<ffffffff8125c72d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0x3a/0x3c
 [<ffffffff8150e066>] ? error_sti+0x5/0x6
 [<ffffffff810c7c80>] ? time_hardirqs_off+0x2a/0x2f
 [<ffffffff8125c6ee>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
 [<ffffffff8150db5d>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
 [<ffffffff8150db5d>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
 [<ffffffff81082a78>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x12d/0x164
 [<ffffffff810a74ce>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x11c/0x148
 [<ffffffff8125c6ee>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
 [<ffffffff81513882>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b


The issue comes from two recent commits:

commit a4010afef585b7142eb605e3a6e4210c0e1b2957
Author: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Date:   Wed Oct 5 07:24:41 2011 +0000
e1000: convert hardware management from timers to threads

and

commit 0ef4eedc2e98edd51cd106e1f6a27178622b7e57
Author: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
Date:   Wed Oct 5 07:24:51 2011 +0000
e1000: convert to private mutex from rtnl


What we have is on __e1000_shutdown():

	mutex_lock(&adapter->mutex);

	if (netif_running(netdev)) {
		WARN_ON(test_bit(__E1000_RESETTING, &adapter->flags));
		e1000_down(adapter);
	}

but e1000_down() calls: e1000_down_and_stop():

static void e1000_down_and_stop(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
{
	set_bit(__E1000_DOWN, &adapter->flags);
	cancel_work_sync(&adapter->reset_task);
	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&adapter->watchdog_task);
	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&adapter->phy_info_task);
	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&adapter->fifo_stall_task);
}


Here you see that we are calling cancel_delayed_work_sync(&adapter->watchdog_task);

The problem is that adapter->watchdog_task grabs the mutex &adapter->mutex.

If the work has started and it blocked on that mutex, the
cancel_delayed_work_sync() will block indefinitely and we have a
deadlock.

Not sure what's the best way around this. Can we call e1000_down()
without grabbing the adapter->mutex?

-- Steve







             reply	other threads:[~2011-11-18  1:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-11-18  1:27 Steven Rostedt [this message]
2011-11-18 16:57 ` [BUG] e1000: possible deadlock scenario caught by lockdep Jesse Brandeburg
2011-11-18 16:57   ` Jesse Brandeburg
2011-11-18 23:17   ` Jesse Brandeburg
2011-11-19  1:47     ` Steven Rostedt

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=1321579620.3533.29.camel@frodo \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=aaron.f.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
    --cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tushar.n.dave@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.