All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>,
	Anand Moon <linux.amoon@gmail.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>,
	"linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Odroid XU4 deadlock
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:33:20 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <570BC3C0.3020007@osg.samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJKOXPcRDyTzYnbpkvmi9anb_cOHoayj72-CC9+eZ5uCuhJNhw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Krzysztof,

On 04/09/2016 07:00 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Anand Moon <linux.amoon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi Javier,
>>
>> On 8 April 2016 at 20:25, Javier Martinez Canillas
>> <javier@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Anand,
>>>
>>> On 04/08/2016 09:51 AM, Anand Moon wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I am observing this deadlock or warning on my Odroid XU4.
>>>> I thinks the is related to clk from exynos5_i2c_xfer .... clk_prepare_enable
>>>> but I am not able to figure out which clk.
>>>>
>>>
>>> By reading your logs, it seems the problem is a possible ABBA deadlock since
>>> the S3C RTC driver grabs the prepare_lock and then the regmap->lock, and the
>>> CPUFreq driver leads to the locks being grabbed in the inverse order.
> 
> First of all this is not a deadlock. Yet. :) This is just lockdep

Yes, that's why I said the problem seemed to be a possible deadlock :)

> report of possible deadlock. This is deadlock:
> http://www.krzk.eu/builders/boot-odroid-xu3-multi_v7/builds/13/steps/Boot%20odroid/logs/serial
> 
> ...and I believe it is the same as the report from lockdep. Which
> means that this report truly a predicted deadlock. There are minor
> differences between deadlock on my board and report from Anand but
> still the same devices are involved. In Anands report the involved
> S2MPS11 regulator and S2MPS11 clock use the same regmap. In my case
> one path comes from S5M RTC which uses different regmap than S2MPS11
> clock. This is the difference which puzzles me.
> 

Yeah, that is puzzling indeed...

> Anyway this is known issue. In case of my board mentioned deadlock
> happens only on multi_v7 on around 15% of boots. I noticed it around
> v4.4 and it happens still.
> 
>>>
>>>> [   11.640221] ======================================================
>>>> [   11.646343] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>>>> [   11.652590] 4.6.0-rc2-xu4ml #35 Not tainted
>>>> [   11.656749] -------------------------------------------------------
>>>> [   11.662992] kworker/1:1/85 is trying to acquire lock:
>>>> [   11.668010]  (prepare_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c05bfed8>]
>>>> clk_prepare_lock+0x50/0xf8
>>>> [   11.675375]
>>>> [   11.675375] but task is already holding lock:
>>>> [   11.681185]  (sec_core:428:(regmap)->lock){+.+...}, at:
>>>> [<c0481aec>] regmap_read+0x2c/0x5c
>>>> [   11.689417]
>>>> [   11.689417] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>>> [   11.689417]
>>>> [   11.697561]
>>>> [   11.697561] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>>> [   11.705008]
>>>> [   11.705008] -> #1 (sec_core:428:(regmap)->lock){+.+...}:
>>>> [   11.710467]        [<c0482d30>] regmap_update_bits_base+0x30/0x70
>>>> [   11.716545]        [<c05c617c>] s2mps11_clk_prepare+0x30/0x38
>>>> [   11.722262]        [<c05c01f0>] clk_core_prepare+0x98/0xbc
>>>> [   11.727711]        [<c05c12bc>] clk_prepare+0x1c/0x2c
>>>> [   11.732734]        [<c0556fe4>] s3c_rtc_probe+0x2d0/0x43c
>>>
>>> the S3C RTC driver tries to prepare the RTC source clock S2MPS11_CLK_AP
>>> and that leads to the prepare_lock to be held and then the regmap->lock
>>> since s2mps11_clk_prepare() calls regmap_update_bits().
>>>
>>>> [   11.738108]        [<c046b9fc>] platform_drv_probe+0x4c/0xb0
>>>> [   11.743749]        [<c046a1fc>] driver_probe_device+0x20c/0x2b8
>>>> [   11.749641]        [<c0468594>] bus_for_each_drv+0x60/0x94
>>>> [   11.755103]        [<c0469f10>] __device_attach+0xb4/0x118
>>>> [   11.760558]        [<c04693b4>] bus_probe_device+0x88/0x90
>>>> [   11.766020]        [<c0469850>] deferred_probe_work_func+0x6c/0x9c
>>>> [   11.772169]        [<c013b52c>] process_one_work+0x1a8/0x514
>>>> [   11.777806]        [<c013b8d0>] worker_thread+0x38/0x56c
>>>> [   11.783082]        [<c0141d14>] kthread+0xf4/0x10c
>>>> [   11.787847]        [<c0107950>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24
>>>> [   11.793050]
>>>> [   11.793050] -> #0 (prepare_lock){+.+...}:
>>>> [   11.797212]        [<c0768dd8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x78/0x4dc
>>>> [   11.802845]        [<c05bfed8>] clk_prepare_lock+0x50/0xf8
>>>> [   11.808304]        [<c05c19c4>] clk_unprepare+0x1c/0x2c
>>>> [   11.813499]        [<c055d720>] exynos5_i2c_xfer+0x1dc/0x304
>>>
>>> and here the locks are grabbed in the inverse order, since the regulator
>>> driver uses regmap read (grabbing the regmap->lock) and then a clock is
>>> prepared in exynos5_i2c_xfer.
>>>
>>>> [   11.819129]        [<c0559620>] __i2c_transfer+0x13c/0x278
>>>> [   11.824589]        [<c05597f0>] i2c_transfer+0x94/0xc4
>>>> [   11.829701]        [<c04868f0>] regmap_i2c_read+0x48/0x64
>>>> [   11.835074]        [<c0482048>] _regmap_raw_read+0xb4/0x114
>>>> [   11.840630]        [<c04820cc>] _regmap_bus_read+0x24/0x58
>>>> [   11.846084]        [<c0481a68>] _regmap_read+0x60/0xb8
>>>> [   11.851201]        [<c0481afc>] regmap_read+0x3c/0x5c
>>>> [   11.856224]        [<c03e2354>] regulator_get_voltage_sel_regmap+0x20/0x54
>>>> [   11.863109]        [<c03dc5d4>] _regulator_get_voltage+0x20/0xb8
>>>> [   11.863141]        [<c03df058>] _regulator_do_set_voltage+0x240/0x370
>>>> [   11.863173]        [<c03df254>] regulator_set_voltage_unlocked+0xcc/0x230
>>>> [   11.863205]        [<c03df3e0>] regulator_set_voltage+0x28/0x54
>>>> [   11.863234]        [<c0478a94>] _set_opp_voltage+0x30/0x98
>>>> [   11.863264]        [<c0479ba8>] dev_pm_opp_set_rate+0x1e0/0x540
>>>> [   11.863337]        [<c0580824>] __cpufreq_driver_target+0x168/0x290
>>>> [   11.863375]        [<c0583b48>] od_dbs_timer+0xdc/0x164
>>>> [   11.863407]        [<c0584114>] dbs_work_handler+0x30/0x58
>>>> [   11.863437]        [<c013b52c>] process_one_work+0x1a8/0x514
>>>> [   11.863465]        [<c013b8d0>] worker_thread+0x38/0x56c
>>>> [   11.863496]        [<c0141d14>] kthread+0xf4/0x10c
>>>> [   11.863528]        [<c0107950>] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24
>>>> [   11.863538]
>>>> [   11.863538] other info that might help us debug this:
>>>> [   11.863538]
>>>> [   11.863548]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>>> [   11.863548]
>>>> [   11.863557]        CPU0                    CPU1
>>>> [   11.863565]        ----                    ----
>>>> [   11.863589]   lock(sec_core:428:(regmap)->lock);
>>>> [   11.863612]                                lock(prepare_lock);
>>>> [   11.863634]                                lock(sec_core:428:(regmap)->lock);
>>>> [   11.863655]   lock(prepare_lock);
>>>> [   11.863664]
>>>> [   11.863664]  *** DEADLOCK ***
>>>> [   11.863664]
>>>
>>> I should take a look in deep to the regmap and clock subsystems to better
>>> understand the issue on how to solve it. But AFAICT the problem is that
>>> the prepare_lock is a global mutex and the same regmap is used for both
>>> the s2mps11 clocks and regulators, so the ABBA deadlock described below
>>> can happen.
> 
> Exactly. One of ideas I remember was to make clocks mutex more
> granular but I did not see any patches doing that. Another interesting
> point is (in my case) deadlock itself (not lockdep report) happens
> only on multi_v7, not on exynos defconfig.
> 

I see that RTC_DRV_S5M is enabled as a module in multi_v7 but built-in
in exynos_defconfig. Maybe that could cause the behavior difference?

> BTW, Anand, if you report please provide more details for
> reproduction: kernel config and reproduction steps.
>

I see that Anand provided his defconfig, so I'll try to reproduce the
lockdep report and look at the issue deeper this week.
 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America

      parent reply	other threads:[~2016-04-11 15:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-08 13:51 Odroid XU4 deadlock Anand Moon
2016-04-08 14:55 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2016-04-08 15:36   ` Anand Moon
2016-04-09 11:00     ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2016-04-11  4:35       ` Anand Moon
2016-04-11 15:33       ` Javier Martinez Canillas [this message]

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=570BC3C0.3020007@osg.samsung.com \
    --to=javier@osg.samsung.com \
    --cc=b.zolnierkie@samsung.com \
    --cc=k.kozlowski@samsung.com \
    --cc=l.majewski@samsung.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux.amoon@gmail.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    /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.