From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>,
Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] phy: use per-PHY lockdep keys
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 10:03:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aEFPRWErB4QkbMkt@hovoldconsulting.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250530-phy-subinit-v2-1-09dfe80e82a8@oss.qualcomm.com>
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:08:28PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> If the PHY driver uses another PHY internally (e.g. in case of eUSB2,
> repeaters are represented as PHYs), then it would trigger the following
> lockdep splat because all PHYs use a single static lockdep key and thus
> lockdep can not identify whether there is a dependency or not and
> reports a false positive.
>
> Make PHY subsystem use dynamic lockdep keys, assigning each driver a
> separate key. This way lockdep can correctly identify dependency graph
> between mutexes.
>
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> 6.15.0-rc7-next-20250522-12896-g3932f283970c #3455 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> kworker/u51:0/78 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff0008116554f0 (&phy->mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: phy_init+0x4c/0x12c
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff000813c10cf0 (&phy->mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: phy_init+0x4c/0x12c
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&phy->mutex);
> lock(&phy->mutex);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> 4 locks held by kworker/u51:0/78:
> #0: ffff000800010948 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x18c/0x5ec
> #1: ffff80008036bdb0 (deferred_probe_work){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1b4/0x5ec
> #2: ffff0008094ac8f8 (&dev->mutex){....}-{4:4}, at: __device_attach+0x38/0x188
> #3: ffff000813c10cf0 (&phy->mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: phy_init+0x4c/0x12c
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 78 Comm: kworker/u51:0 Not tainted 6.15.0-rc7-next-20250522-12896-g3932f283970c #3455 PREEMPT
> Hardware name: Qualcomm CRD, BIOS 6.0.240904.BOOT.MXF.2.4-00528.1-HAMOA-1 09/ 4/2024
> Workqueue: events_unbound deferred_probe_work_func
> Call trace:
> show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C)
> dump_stack_lvl+0x90/0xd0
> dump_stack+0x18/0x24
> print_deadlock_bug+0x258/0x348
> __lock_acquire+0x10fc/0x1f84
> lock_acquire+0x1c8/0x338
> __mutex_lock+0xb8/0x59c
> mutex_lock_nested+0x24/0x30
> phy_init+0x4c/0x12c
> snps_eusb2_hsphy_init+0x54/0x1a0
> phy_init+0xe0/0x12c
> dwc3_core_init+0x450/0x10b4
> dwc3_core_probe+0xce4/0x15fc
> dwc3_probe+0x64/0xb0
> platform_probe+0x68/0xc4
> really_probe+0xbc/0x298
> __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x12c
> driver_probe_device+0x3c/0x160
> __device_attach_driver+0xb8/0x138
> bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xe0
> __device_attach+0x9c/0x188
> device_initial_probe+0x14/0x20
> bus_probe_device+0xac/0xb0
> deferred_probe_work_func+0x8c/0xc8
> process_one_work+0x208/0x5ec
> worker_thread+0x1c0/0x368
> kthread+0x14c/0x20c
> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
Nit: This last bit of the stack trace adds little value and can be
dropped.
> Fixes: 3584f6392f09 ("phy: qcom: phy-qcom-snps-eusb2: Add support for eUSB2 repeater")
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
> Note: I've used a Fixes tag pointing to the commit which actually
> started using nested PHYs. If you think that it's incorrect, I'm fine
> with dropping it.
I think it's warranted. And if there were further users before this one
as Neil suggested you could just list them all as each has been
introducing a new splat.
> Note2: I've tried using mutex_lock_nested, however that didn't play
> well. We can not store nest level in the struct phy (as it can be used
> by different drivers), so using mutex_lock_nested() would require us to
> change and wrap all PHY APIs which take a lock internally. Using dynamic
> lockdep keys looks like a more ellegant solution, especially granted
> that there is no extra impact if lockdep is disabled.
Thanks for fixing this. I've been using a local hack based on
mutex_lock_nested() too but dynamic keys looks like the right way to go.
Perhaps you can add:
Reported-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZnpoAVGJMG4Zu-Jw@hovoldconsulting.com/
Works fine on the T14s:
Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
Johan
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>,
Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@linaro.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] phy: use per-PHY lockdep keys
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 10:03:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aEFPRWErB4QkbMkt@hovoldconsulting.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250530-phy-subinit-v2-1-09dfe80e82a8@oss.qualcomm.com>
On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 07:08:28PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> If the PHY driver uses another PHY internally (e.g. in case of eUSB2,
> repeaters are represented as PHYs), then it would trigger the following
> lockdep splat because all PHYs use a single static lockdep key and thus
> lockdep can not identify whether there is a dependency or not and
> reports a false positive.
>
> Make PHY subsystem use dynamic lockdep keys, assigning each driver a
> separate key. This way lockdep can correctly identify dependency graph
> between mutexes.
>
> ============================================
> WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> 6.15.0-rc7-next-20250522-12896-g3932f283970c #3455 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------
> kworker/u51:0/78 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff0008116554f0 (&phy->mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: phy_init+0x4c/0x12c
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff000813c10cf0 (&phy->mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: phy_init+0x4c/0x12c
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&phy->mutex);
> lock(&phy->mutex);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> 4 locks held by kworker/u51:0/78:
> #0: ffff000800010948 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x18c/0x5ec
> #1: ffff80008036bdb0 (deferred_probe_work){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1b4/0x5ec
> #2: ffff0008094ac8f8 (&dev->mutex){....}-{4:4}, at: __device_attach+0x38/0x188
> #3: ffff000813c10cf0 (&phy->mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: phy_init+0x4c/0x12c
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 78 Comm: kworker/u51:0 Not tainted 6.15.0-rc7-next-20250522-12896-g3932f283970c #3455 PREEMPT
> Hardware name: Qualcomm CRD, BIOS 6.0.240904.BOOT.MXF.2.4-00528.1-HAMOA-1 09/ 4/2024
> Workqueue: events_unbound deferred_probe_work_func
> Call trace:
> show_stack+0x18/0x24 (C)
> dump_stack_lvl+0x90/0xd0
> dump_stack+0x18/0x24
> print_deadlock_bug+0x258/0x348
> __lock_acquire+0x10fc/0x1f84
> lock_acquire+0x1c8/0x338
> __mutex_lock+0xb8/0x59c
> mutex_lock_nested+0x24/0x30
> phy_init+0x4c/0x12c
> snps_eusb2_hsphy_init+0x54/0x1a0
> phy_init+0xe0/0x12c
> dwc3_core_init+0x450/0x10b4
> dwc3_core_probe+0xce4/0x15fc
> dwc3_probe+0x64/0xb0
> platform_probe+0x68/0xc4
> really_probe+0xbc/0x298
> __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x12c
> driver_probe_device+0x3c/0x160
> __device_attach_driver+0xb8/0x138
> bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xe0
> __device_attach+0x9c/0x188
> device_initial_probe+0x14/0x20
> bus_probe_device+0xac/0xb0
> deferred_probe_work_func+0x8c/0xc8
> process_one_work+0x208/0x5ec
> worker_thread+0x1c0/0x368
> kthread+0x14c/0x20c
> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
Nit: This last bit of the stack trace adds little value and can be
dropped.
> Fixes: 3584f6392f09 ("phy: qcom: phy-qcom-snps-eusb2: Add support for eUSB2 repeater")
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---
> Note: I've used a Fixes tag pointing to the commit which actually
> started using nested PHYs. If you think that it's incorrect, I'm fine
> with dropping it.
I think it's warranted. And if there were further users before this one
as Neil suggested you could just list them all as each has been
introducing a new splat.
> Note2: I've tried using mutex_lock_nested, however that didn't play
> well. We can not store nest level in the struct phy (as it can be used
> by different drivers), so using mutex_lock_nested() would require us to
> change and wrap all PHY APIs which take a lock internally. Using dynamic
> lockdep keys looks like a more ellegant solution, especially granted
> that there is no extra impact if lockdep is disabled.
Thanks for fixing this. I've been using a local hack based on
mutex_lock_nested() too but dynamic keys looks like the right way to go.
Perhaps you can add:
Reported-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZnpoAVGJMG4Zu-Jw@hovoldconsulting.com/
Works fine on the T14s:
Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
Johan
--
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-05 8:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-30 16:08 [PATCH v2] phy: use per-PHY lockdep keys Dmitry Baryshkov
2025-05-30 16:08 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2025-06-04 12:46 ` Abel Vesa
2025-06-04 12:46 ` Abel Vesa
2025-06-04 15:26 ` Neil Armstrong
2025-06-04 15:26 ` Neil Armstrong
2025-06-05 8:03 ` Johan Hovold [this message]
2025-06-05 8:03 ` Johan Hovold
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=aEFPRWErB4QkbMkt@hovoldconsulting.com \
--to=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=abel.vesa@linaro.org \
--cc=dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=kishon@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-phy@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=neil.armstrong@linaro.org \
--cc=vkoul@kernel.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.