All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@de.ibm.com>
To: "Sachin P. Sant" <sachinp@in.ibm.com>
Cc: TKLEIN@de.ibm.com, Jan-Bernd Themann <THEMANN@de.ibm.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [Powerpc / eHEA] Circular dependency with 2.6.29-rc6
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:05:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49A55E54.4080304@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49A26290.60607@in.ibm.com>

Hi,

we have investigated this problem but didn't understand to root cause of
this problem so far.
The things we observed:
- The warning is only shown when the ehea module is loaded while the
machine is booting.
- If you load the module later (modprobe) no warnings are shown
- Machine never actually hangs

We interpret the warning like this:
- The mutex debug facility detects a dependency between port_lock and
ehea_fw_handles.lock
- ehea_fw_handles.lock is an ehea global lock
- port->port_lock is a lock per network device
- When "open" is called for a registered network device, port->port_lock
is taken first,
  then ehea_fw_handles.lock
- When "open" is left these locks are released in a proper way (inverse
order)
- In addition: ehea_fw_handles.lock is held by the function
"driver_probe_device"
  that registers all available network devices (register_netdev)
- When multiple network devices are registered, it is possible that
"open" is
  called on an already registered network device while further
netdevices are still registered
  in "driver_probe_device". ---> "open" will take port->port_lock, but
won't get ehea_fw_handles.lock
- However, ehea_fw_handles.lock is freed once all netdevices are registered.
- When the second netdevice is registered in "driver_probe_device", it
will also try to get
  the port->port_lock (which in fact is a different one, as there is one
per netdevice).
- Does the mutex debug mechanism distinguish between the different
port->port_lock instances?

So far we don't see a locking problem here. Is it possible that the
mutex debug
mechanism causes a false positive here?

Any help is highly appreciated.

Regards
Jan-Bernd

Sachin P. Sant wrote:
> While booting 2.6.29-rc6 on a powerpc box came across this
> circular dependency with eHEA driver.
>
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.29-rc6 #2
> -------------------------------------------------------
> ip/2174 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&ehea_fw_handles.lock){--..}, at: [<d000000002a13e30>]
> .ehea_up+0x64/0x6e0
> [ehea]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&port->port_lock){--..}, at: [<d000000002a1533c>]
> .ehea_open+0x3c/0xc4 [ehea]
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #2 (&port->port_lock){--..}:
> [<c0000000000a8590>] .__lock_acquire+0x7e0/0x8a8
>       [<c0000000000a86ac>] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x80
>       [<c0000000005d7564>] .mutex_lock_nested+0x190/0x46c
>       [<d000000002a1533c>] .ehea_open+0x3c/0xc4 [ehea]
>       [<c000000000537834>] .dev_open+0xf4/0x168
>       [<c000000000535780>] .dev_change_flags+0xe4/0x1e8
>       [<c000000000597bfc>] .devinet_ioctl+0x2c4/0x750
>       [<c0000000005997a8>] .inet_ioctl+0xcc/0x11c
>       [<c000000000523400>] .sock_ioctl+0x2f0/0x34c
>       [<c0000000001380ec>] .vfs_ioctl+0x5c/0xf0
>       [<c000000000138810>] .do_vfs_ioctl+0x690/0x70c
>       [<c000000000138900>] .SyS_ioctl+0x74/0xb8
>       [<c00000000016fb08>] .dev_ifsioc+0x210/0x4b8
>       [<c00000000016ef18>] .compat_sys_ioctl+0x3f4/0x488
>       [<c00000000000855c>] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
>
> -> #1 (rtnl_mutex){--..}:
>       [<c0000000000a8590>] .__lock_acquire+0x7e0/0x8a8
>       [<c0000000000a86ac>] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x80
>       [<c0000000005d7564>] .mutex_lock_nested+0x190/0x46c
>       [<c0000000005430a8>] .rtnl_lock+0x20/0x38
>       [<c00000000053677c>] .register_netdev+0x1c/0x80
>       [<d000000002a12714>] .ehea_setup_single_port+0x2c8/0x3d0 [ehea]
>       [<d000000002a19da8>] .ehea_probe_adapter+0x288/0x394 [ehea]
>       [<c00000000051f034>] .of_platform_device_probe+0x78/0x86c
>       [<c00000000047faec>] .driver_probe_device+0x13c/0x200
>       [<c00000000047fc44>] .__driver_attach+0x94/0xd8
>       [<c00000000047eab4>] .bus_for_each_dev+0x80/0xd8
>       [<c00000000047f850>] .driver_attach+0x28/0x40
>       [<c00000000047f23c>] .bus_add_driver+0xd4/0x284
>       [<c00000000047ff7c>] .driver_register+0xc4/0x198
>       [<c00000000051eeec>] .of_register_driver+0x4c/0x60
>       [<c000000000024da4>] .ibmebus_register_driver+0x30/0x4c
>       [<d000000002a1a090>] .ehea_module_init+0x1dc/0x234c [ehea]
>       [<c000000000009368>] .do_one_initcall+0x90/0x1b0
>       [<c0000000000b2f24>] .SyS_init_module+0xc8/0x220
>       [<c00000000000855c>] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
>
> -> #0 (&ehea_fw_handles.lock){--..}:
>       [<c0000000000a8590>] .__lock_acquire+0x7e0/0x8a8
>       [<c0000000000a86ac>] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x80
>       [<c0000000005d7564>] .mutex_lock_nested+0x190/0x46c
>       [<d000000002a13e30>] .ehea_up+0x64/0x6e0 [ehea]
>       [<d000000002a15364>] .ehea_open+0x64/0xc4 [ehea]
>       [<c000000000537834>] .dev_open+0xf4/0x168
>       [<c000000000535780>] .dev_change_flags+0xe4/0x1e8
>       [<c000000000597bfc>] .devinet_ioctl+0x2c4/0x750
>       [<c0000000005997a8>] .inet_ioctl+0xcc/0x11c
>       [<c000000000523400>] .sock_ioctl+0x2f0/0x34c
>       [<c0000000001380ec>] .vfs_ioctl+0x5c/0xf0
>       [<c000000000138810>] .do_vfs_ioctl+0x690/0x70c
>       [<c000000000138900>] .SyS_ioctl+0x74/0xb8
>       [<c00000000016fb08>] .dev_ifsioc+0x210/0x4b8
>       [<c00000000016ef18>] .compat_sys_ioctl+0x3f4/0x488
>       [<c00000000000855c>] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> 2 locks held by ip/2174:
> #0:  (rtnl_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0000000005430a8>] .rtnl_lock+0x20/0x38
> #1:  (&port->port_lock){--..}, at: [<d000000002a1533c>]
> .ehea_open+0x3c/0xc4
> [ehea]
>
> stack backtrace:
> Call Trace:
> [c00000004246b070] [c00000000001154c] .show_stack+0x70/0x184 (unreliable)
> [c00000004246b120] [c0000000000a6ee4] .print_circular_bug_tail+0xd8/0xfc
> [c00000004246b1f0] [c0000000000a76ec] .validate_chain+0x7e4/0xea8
> [c00000004246b2b0] [c0000000000a8590] .__lock_acquire+0x7e0/0x8a8
> [c00000004246b3a0] [c0000000000a86ac] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x80
> [c00000004246b430] [c0000000005d7564] .mutex_lock_nested+0x190/0x46c
> [c00000004246b510] [d000000002a13e30] .ehea_up+0x64/0x6e0 [ehea]
> [c00000004246b610] [d000000002a15364] .ehea_open+0x64/0xc4 [ehea]
> [c00000004246b6b0] [c000000000537834] .dev_open+0xf4/0x168
> [c00000004246b740] [c000000000535780] .dev_change_flags+0xe4/0x1e8
> [c00000004246b7f0] [c000000000597bfc] .devinet_ioctl+0x2c4/0x750
> [c00000004246b8f0] [c0000000005997a8] .inet_ioctl+0xcc/0x11c
> [c00000004246b960] [c000000000523400] .sock_ioctl+0x2f0/0x34c
> [c00000004246ba00] [c0000000001380ec] .vfs_ioctl+0x5c/0xf0
> [c00000004246baa0] [c000000000138810] .do_vfs_ioctl+0x690/0x70c
> [c00000004246bb80] [c000000000138900] .SyS_ioctl+0x74/0xb8
> [c00000004246bc30] [c00000000016fb08] .dev_ifsioc+0x210/0x4b8
> [c00000004246bd40] [c00000000016ef18] .compat_sys_ioctl+0x3f4/0x488
> [c00000004246be30] [c00000000000855c] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
> ehea: eth2: Physical port up
>
> Thanks
> -Sachin
>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@de.ibm.com>
To: "Sachin P. Sant" <sachinp@in.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	TKLEIN@de.ibm.com, Jan-Bernd Themann <THEMANN@de.ibm.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [Powerpc / eHEA] Circular dependency with 2.6.29-rc6
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:05:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <49A55E54.4080304@de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49A26290.60607@in.ibm.com>

Hi,

we have investigated this problem but didn't understand to root cause of
this problem so far.
The things we observed:
- The warning is only shown when the ehea module is loaded while the
machine is booting.
- If you load the module later (modprobe) no warnings are shown
- Machine never actually hangs

We interpret the warning like this:
- The mutex debug facility detects a dependency between port_lock and
ehea_fw_handles.lock
- ehea_fw_handles.lock is an ehea global lock
- port->port_lock is a lock per network device
- When "open" is called for a registered network device, port->port_lock
is taken first,
  then ehea_fw_handles.lock
- When "open" is left these locks are released in a proper way (inverse
order)
- In addition: ehea_fw_handles.lock is held by the function
"driver_probe_device"
  that registers all available network devices (register_netdev)
- When multiple network devices are registered, it is possible that
"open" is
  called on an already registered network device while further
netdevices are still registered
  in "driver_probe_device". ---> "open" will take port->port_lock, but
won't get ehea_fw_handles.lock
- However, ehea_fw_handles.lock is freed once all netdevices are registered.
- When the second netdevice is registered in "driver_probe_device", it
will also try to get
  the port->port_lock (which in fact is a different one, as there is one
per netdevice).
- Does the mutex debug mechanism distinguish between the different
port->port_lock instances?

So far we don't see a locking problem here. Is it possible that the
mutex debug
mechanism causes a false positive here?

Any help is highly appreciated.

Regards
Jan-Bernd

Sachin P. Sant wrote:
> While booting 2.6.29-rc6 on a powerpc box came across this
> circular dependency with eHEA driver.
>
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.29-rc6 #2
> -------------------------------------------------------
> ip/2174 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&ehea_fw_handles.lock){--..}, at: [<d000000002a13e30>]
> .ehea_up+0x64/0x6e0
> [ehea]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&port->port_lock){--..}, at: [<d000000002a1533c>]
> .ehea_open+0x3c/0xc4 [ehea]
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #2 (&port->port_lock){--..}:
> [<c0000000000a8590>] .__lock_acquire+0x7e0/0x8a8
>       [<c0000000000a86ac>] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x80
>       [<c0000000005d7564>] .mutex_lock_nested+0x190/0x46c
>       [<d000000002a1533c>] .ehea_open+0x3c/0xc4 [ehea]
>       [<c000000000537834>] .dev_open+0xf4/0x168
>       [<c000000000535780>] .dev_change_flags+0xe4/0x1e8
>       [<c000000000597bfc>] .devinet_ioctl+0x2c4/0x750
>       [<c0000000005997a8>] .inet_ioctl+0xcc/0x11c
>       [<c000000000523400>] .sock_ioctl+0x2f0/0x34c
>       [<c0000000001380ec>] .vfs_ioctl+0x5c/0xf0
>       [<c000000000138810>] .do_vfs_ioctl+0x690/0x70c
>       [<c000000000138900>] .SyS_ioctl+0x74/0xb8
>       [<c00000000016fb08>] .dev_ifsioc+0x210/0x4b8
>       [<c00000000016ef18>] .compat_sys_ioctl+0x3f4/0x488
>       [<c00000000000855c>] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
>
> -> #1 (rtnl_mutex){--..}:
>       [<c0000000000a8590>] .__lock_acquire+0x7e0/0x8a8
>       [<c0000000000a86ac>] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x80
>       [<c0000000005d7564>] .mutex_lock_nested+0x190/0x46c
>       [<c0000000005430a8>] .rtnl_lock+0x20/0x38
>       [<c00000000053677c>] .register_netdev+0x1c/0x80
>       [<d000000002a12714>] .ehea_setup_single_port+0x2c8/0x3d0 [ehea]
>       [<d000000002a19da8>] .ehea_probe_adapter+0x288/0x394 [ehea]
>       [<c00000000051f034>] .of_platform_device_probe+0x78/0x86c
>       [<c00000000047faec>] .driver_probe_device+0x13c/0x200
>       [<c00000000047fc44>] .__driver_attach+0x94/0xd8
>       [<c00000000047eab4>] .bus_for_each_dev+0x80/0xd8
>       [<c00000000047f850>] .driver_attach+0x28/0x40
>       [<c00000000047f23c>] .bus_add_driver+0xd4/0x284
>       [<c00000000047ff7c>] .driver_register+0xc4/0x198
>       [<c00000000051eeec>] .of_register_driver+0x4c/0x60
>       [<c000000000024da4>] .ibmebus_register_driver+0x30/0x4c
>       [<d000000002a1a090>] .ehea_module_init+0x1dc/0x234c [ehea]
>       [<c000000000009368>] .do_one_initcall+0x90/0x1b0
>       [<c0000000000b2f24>] .SyS_init_module+0xc8/0x220
>       [<c00000000000855c>] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
>
> -> #0 (&ehea_fw_handles.lock){--..}:
>       [<c0000000000a8590>] .__lock_acquire+0x7e0/0x8a8
>       [<c0000000000a86ac>] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x80
>       [<c0000000005d7564>] .mutex_lock_nested+0x190/0x46c
>       [<d000000002a13e30>] .ehea_up+0x64/0x6e0 [ehea]
>       [<d000000002a15364>] .ehea_open+0x64/0xc4 [ehea]
>       [<c000000000537834>] .dev_open+0xf4/0x168
>       [<c000000000535780>] .dev_change_flags+0xe4/0x1e8
>       [<c000000000597bfc>] .devinet_ioctl+0x2c4/0x750
>       [<c0000000005997a8>] .inet_ioctl+0xcc/0x11c
>       [<c000000000523400>] .sock_ioctl+0x2f0/0x34c
>       [<c0000000001380ec>] .vfs_ioctl+0x5c/0xf0
>       [<c000000000138810>] .do_vfs_ioctl+0x690/0x70c
>       [<c000000000138900>] .SyS_ioctl+0x74/0xb8
>       [<c00000000016fb08>] .dev_ifsioc+0x210/0x4b8
>       [<c00000000016ef18>] .compat_sys_ioctl+0x3f4/0x488
>       [<c00000000000855c>] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> 2 locks held by ip/2174:
> #0:  (rtnl_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0000000005430a8>] .rtnl_lock+0x20/0x38
> #1:  (&port->port_lock){--..}, at: [<d000000002a1533c>]
> .ehea_open+0x3c/0xc4
> [ehea]
>
> stack backtrace:
> Call Trace:
> [c00000004246b070] [c00000000001154c] .show_stack+0x70/0x184 (unreliable)
> [c00000004246b120] [c0000000000a6ee4] .print_circular_bug_tail+0xd8/0xfc
> [c00000004246b1f0] [c0000000000a76ec] .validate_chain+0x7e4/0xea8
> [c00000004246b2b0] [c0000000000a8590] .__lock_acquire+0x7e0/0x8a8
> [c00000004246b3a0] [c0000000000a86ac] .lock_acquire+0x54/0x80
> [c00000004246b430] [c0000000005d7564] .mutex_lock_nested+0x190/0x46c
> [c00000004246b510] [d000000002a13e30] .ehea_up+0x64/0x6e0 [ehea]
> [c00000004246b610] [d000000002a15364] .ehea_open+0x64/0xc4 [ehea]
> [c00000004246b6b0] [c000000000537834] .dev_open+0xf4/0x168
> [c00000004246b740] [c000000000535780] .dev_change_flags+0xe4/0x1e8
> [c00000004246b7f0] [c000000000597bfc] .devinet_ioctl+0x2c4/0x750
> [c00000004246b8f0] [c0000000005997a8] .inet_ioctl+0xcc/0x11c
> [c00000004246b960] [c000000000523400] .sock_ioctl+0x2f0/0x34c
> [c00000004246ba00] [c0000000001380ec] .vfs_ioctl+0x5c/0xf0
> [c00000004246baa0] [c000000000138810] .do_vfs_ioctl+0x690/0x70c
> [c00000004246bb80] [c000000000138900] .SyS_ioctl+0x74/0xb8
> [c00000004246bc30] [c00000000016fb08] .dev_ifsioc+0x210/0x4b8
> [c00000004246bd40] [c00000000016ef18] .compat_sys_ioctl+0x3f4/0x488
> [c00000004246be30] [c00000000000855c] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
> ehea: eth2: Physical port up
>
> Thanks
> -Sachin
>


  reply	other threads:[~2009-02-25 15:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-02-23  8:47 [Powerpc / eHEA] Circular dependency with 2.6.29-rc6 Sachin P. Sant
2009-02-23  8:47 ` Sachin P. Sant
2009-02-25 15:05 ` Jan-Bernd Themann [this message]
2009-02-25 15:05   ` Jan-Bernd Themann
2009-02-25 15:50   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-02-25 17:07     ` Jan-Bernd Themann
2009-02-25 18:24       ` Peter Zijlstra

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=49A55E54.4080304@de.ibm.com \
    --to=ossthema@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=THEMANN@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=TKLEIN@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sachinp@in.ibm.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.