[regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Christian Borntraeger]

Hello Thomas,

I have e1000e compiled into my kernel and 

commit 717d438d1fde94decef874b9808379d1f4523453
Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu Oct 2 16:33:40 2008 -0700

    e1000e: debug contention on NVM SWFLAG


Causes a storm of 

[   15.600387] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[   15.600388] WARNING: at drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c:399 
e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan+0xde/0xf0()
[   15.600389] Modules linked in:
[   15.600390] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Tainted: G        W 
2.6.27-rc8-00055-gb5ff7df #26
[   15.600391]  [<c01421cf>] warn_on_slowpath+0x5f/0xa0
[   15.600394]  [<c0464999>] __devinet_sysctl_register+0xc9/0x100
[   15.600396]  [<c015bf0e>] sched_clock_cpu+0xde/0x180
[   15.600399]  [<c015ae98>] down_trylock+0x28/0x40
[   15.600400]  [<c04df645>] _spin_unlock+0x5/0x20
[   15.600402]  [<c02944a4>] delay_tsc+0x84/0xb0
[   15.600404]  [<c031bd6e>] e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan+0xde/0xf0
[   15.600406]  [<c031b716>] e1000_read_flash_word_ich8lan+0x76/0xb0
[   15.600408]  [<c031c05b>] e1000_read_nvm_ich8lan+0x5b/0xf0
[   15.600410]  [<c031ecb4>] e1000e_read_pba_num+0x64/0x80
[   15.600412]  [<c04d2158>] e1000_probe+0xb98/0xc20
[   15.600414]  [<c02a4f0e>] pci_device_probe+0x5e/0x80
[   15.600416]  [<c030d416>] driver_probe_device+0x86/0x1a0
[   15.600418]  [<c04df373>] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x33/0x50
[   15.600420]  [<c030d5a1>] __driver_attach+0x71/0x80
[   15.600422]  [<c02a4e50>] pci_device_remove+0x0/0x40
[   15.600424]  [<c030cd44>] bus_for_each_dev+0x44/0x70
[   15.600426]  [<c02a4e50>] pci_device_remove+0x0/0x40
[   15.600427]  [<c030d2a6>] driver_attach+0x16/0x20
[   15.600430]  [<c030d530>] __driver_attach+0x0/0x80
[   15.600432]  [<c030c70f>] bus_add_driver+0x19f/0x220
[   15.600434]  [<c02a4e50>] pci_device_remove+0x0/0x40
[   15.600435]  [<c030d73c>] driver_register+0x5c/0x130
[   15.600437]  [<c06aa88f>] thinkpad_acpi_module_init+0x7b2/0x983
[   15.600439]  [<c06aaa60>] e1000_init_module+0x0/0x70
[   15.600441]  [<c02a5157>] __pci_register_driver+0x47/0x90
[   15.600443]  [<c06aaaa5>] e1000_init_module+0x45/0x70
[   15.600445]  [<c01012ea>] do_one_initcall+0x2a/0x190
[   15.600446]  [<c01defb4>] create_proc_entry+0x54/0xa0
[   15.600449]  [<c0175411>] register_irq_proc+0xc1/0xe0
[   15.600451]  [<c0175478>] init_irq_proc+0x48/0x60
[   15.600452]  [<c068e85d>] kernel_init+0x11a/0x17d
[   15.600454]  [<c068e743>] kernel_init+0x0/0x17d
[   15.600456]  [<c011d48b>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x1c
[   15.600458]  =======================
[   15.600459] ---[ end trace 1caa30bae2a6fa92 ]---


This is caused by holding a spinlock (__driver_attach) and checking for 
preempt_count (e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan).

I suggest to revert this commit, since we cannot take a mutex while holding a 
spinlock.
The simple solution of replacing the mutex with a spinlock does not work, 
since we call msleep on several places in the code. Replacing all that code 
doesnt look like 2.6.27 material.

Christian

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> This is caused by holding a spinlock (__driver_attach) and checking for 
> preempt_count (e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan).

Which spinlock is it? It sure shouldn't be anything in the generic drievr 
layer: __driver_attach takes a lock, but it's a semaphore (dev->sem), not 
a spinlock. In fact, al lot of drivers will sleep or do allocations, so if 
the driver layer were to call the probe function with a spinlock held, 
things would be really broken.

The callchain has "spin_lock_irqsave" in it, but that's stale stack data. 

			Linus

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Christian Borntraeger]

Am Freitag, 3. Oktober 2008 schrieben Sie:
> Which spinlock is it? It sure shouldn't be anything in the generic drievr 
> layer: __driver_attach takes a lock, but it's a semaphore (dev->sem), not 
> a spinlock. In fact, al lot of drivers will sleep or do allocations, so if 
> the driver layer were to call the probe function with a spinlock held, 
> things would be really broken.
> 
> The callchain has "spin_lock_irqsave" in it, but that's stale stack data. 

Very good point indeed. Seems my analysis was wrong. I made a short test and 
preempt_count() returns 1 when the WARN_ON triggers. So its either a spinlock 
or something else that increased my preempt_count.

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> Very good point indeed. Seems my analysis was wrong. I made a short test and 
> preempt_count() returns 1 when the WARN_ON triggers. So its either a spinlock 
> or something else that increased my preempt_count.

Ok, I can repro it. I couldn't see it before because I usually don't have 
PREEMPT even enabled.  Enabling PREEMPT and PREEMPT_DEBUG gets me the 
messages too. Jesse?

The call trace is much better with frame pointers enabled, loke so (with
the '?' entries removed as stale):

   Call Trace:
	warn_on_slowpath+0x53/0x7a
	e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan+0x2d/0xe1
	e1000_read_nvm_ich8lan+0x4f/0xee
	e1000e_read_pba_num+0x4e/0x69
	e1000_probe+0xa32/0xb71
	pci_device_probe+0x4c/0x72
	driver_probe_device+0xc0/0x16e
	__driver_attach+0x4f/0x79
	bus_for_each_dev+0x4f/0x89
	driver_attach+0x1c/0x1e
	bus_add_driver+0xb7/0x1f4
	driver_register+0xa8/0x128
	__pci_register_driver+0x66/0x9d
	e1000_init_module+0x4f/0x6b
	_stext+0x47/0x13f
	kernel_init+0x127/0x17b
	child_rip+0xa/0x11

and yes, there's quite a lot of them.  I'm not seeing what disables
preemption, though.  I'll look at it some more, but I decided I should
post that cleaned-up call chain so that others can do so too..

		Linus

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Christian Borntraeger]

Am Freitag, 3. Oktober 2008 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> Ok, I can repro it. I couldn't see it before because I usually don't have 
> PREEMPT even enabled.  Enabling PREEMPT and PREEMPT_DEBUG gets me the 
> messages too. Jesse?

I ow enabled FRAMEBUFFERS and increased the log size to actually get the first 
one. Its different from yours, but should be the same problem.
According to grep I have 265 warnings in dmesg.


[    0.853027] e1000e: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - 0.3.3.3-k6
[    0.867831] e1000e: Copyright (c) 1999-2008 Intel Corporation.
[    0.882588] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 20 (level, low) -> IRQ 20
[    0.897300] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: setting latency timer to 64
[    0.897456] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[    0.912011] WARNING: at drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c:399 
e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan+0xe7/0xf0()
[    0.926825] Modules linked in:
[    0.941486] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.27-rc8-00055-gb5ff7df #34
[    0.956340]  [<c04da2c1>] ? printk+0x18/0x1f
[    0.971205]  [<c0141ae4>] warn_on_slowpath+0x54/0x80
[    0.986110]  [<c013741b>] ? kunmap_atomic+0x3b/0xc0
[    1.001016]  [<c0134dd3>] ? change_page_attr_set_clr+0xc3/0x1b0
[    1.015966]  [<c0319a67>] e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan+0xe7/0xf0
[    1.030827]  [<c013507f>] ? _set_memory_uc+0x1f/0x30
[    1.045530]  [<c031e48c>] e1000e_read_phy_reg_igp+0x1c/0x70
[    1.060097]  [<c031e54e>] e1000e_get_phy_id+0x1e/0x80
[    1.074481]  [<c031e5cf>] e1000e_determine_phy_address+0x1f/0x50
[    1.088705]  [<c031a87f>] e1000_get_variants_ich8lan+0xdf/0x250
[    1.102774]  [<c04cea3f>] e1000_probe+0x40f/0xc80
[    1.116727]  [<c01e5056>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x16/0x200
[    1.130557]  [<c01e4833>] ? sysfs_add_one+0x13/0x50
[    1.144120]  [<c01e48c1>] ? sysfs_addrm_start+0x51/0x90
[    1.144128]  [<c02a0d65>] ? pci_match_device+0xb5/0xc0
[    1.144136]  [<c02a156e>] pci_device_probe+0x5e/0x80
[    1.144143]  [<c030aeb2>] driver_probe_device+0x82/0x1a0
[    1.144152]  [<c030b041>] __driver_attach+0x71/0x80
[    1.144159]  [<c030a7c3>] bus_for_each_dev+0x53/0x80
[    1.144165]  [<c02a14b0>] ? pci_device_remove+0x0/0x40
[    1.144172]  [<c030ad39>] driver_attach+0x19/0x20
[    1.144179]  [<c030afd0>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80
[    1.144186]  [<c030a197>] bus_add_driver+0x1a7/0x220
[    1.144193]  [<c02a14b0>] ? pci_device_remove+0x0/0x40
[    1.144200]  [<c030b1e9>] driver_register+0x69/0x150
[    1.144206]  [<c0315040>] ? fan_write+0x0/0x3c0
[    1.144213]  [<c06a8080>] ? e1000_init_module+0x0/0x70
[    1.144221]  [<c02a178a>] __pci_register_driver+0x4a/0xa0
[    1.144228]  [<c06a8080>] ? e1000_init_module+0x0/0x70
[    1.144235]  [<c06a80c8>] e1000_init_module+0x48/0x70
[    1.144241]  [<c01012f6>] do_one_initcall+0x26/0x170
[    1.144248]  [<c01ddab4>] ? create_proc_entry+0x54/0xb0
[    1.144255]  [<c017502e>] ? register_irq_proc+0xbe/0xe0
[    1.144264]  [<c0175098>] ? init_irq_proc+0x48/0x60
[    1.144271]  [<c068b89d>] kernel_init+0x11a/0x17d
[    1.144279]  [<c068b783>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x17d
[    1.144285]  [<c011d207>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Christian Borntraeger]

I got an idea,


kernel_init does lock_kernel (which does preempt_disable).
The kernel_unlock is done in init_post. As far as I can see, this happens 
after the driver init calls.

Christian

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> kernel_init does lock_kernel (which does preempt_disable).
> The kernel_unlock is done in init_post. As far as I can see, this happens 
> after the driver init calls.

Yes. I just came to the same conclusion: preempt_count is 1 already in 
do_one_initcall().

So this whole bug is actually because that debug test is just _broken_. It 
shouldn't be WARN_ON(preempt_count()), it should be 'might_sleep()', which 
does it right.

The right thing to check is "in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()".

Duh. That was wasted effort for a buggy test.

		Linus

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> So this whole bug is actually because that debug test is just _broken_. It 
> shouldn't be WARN_ON(preempt_count()), it should be 'might_sleep()', which 
> does it right.

Tested and confirmed. Committed and pushed out,

		Linus

RE: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Brandeburg, Jesse]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So this whole bug is actually because that debug test is just
> _broken_. It shouldn't be WARN_ON(preempt_count()), it should be
> 'might_sleep()', which does it right.
> 
> The right thing to check is "in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()".

okay, do you want me to post a patch?  I think Thomas is probably
offline due to fridaynightitis.  Change the code to:?

WARN_ON(in_atomic() || irqs_disabled);
 
> Duh. That was wasted effort for a buggy test.

Apologies for not catching it.

RE: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
>
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So this whole bug is actually because that debug test is just
> > _broken_. It shouldn't be WARN_ON(preempt_count()), it should be
> > 'might_sleep()', which does it right.
> > 
> > The right thing to check is "in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()".
> 
> okay, do you want me to post a patch?  I think Thomas is probably
> offline due to fridaynightitis.  Change the code to:?
> 
> WARN_ON(in_atomic() || irqs_disabled);

No, literally just "might_sleep()". It then does everything right, 
including taking into account that we allow certain behavior during bootup 
that we don't allow later.

			Linus

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > 
> > kernel_init does lock_kernel (which does preempt_disable).
> > The kernel_unlock is done in init_post. As far as I can see, this happens 
> > after the driver init calls.
> 
> Yes. I just came to the same conclusion: preempt_count is 1 already in 
> do_one_initcall().
> 
> So this whole bug is actually because that debug test is just _broken_. It 
> shouldn't be WARN_ON(preempt_count()), it should be 'might_sleep()', which 
> does it right.
> 
> The right thing to check is "in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()".
> 
> Duh. That was wasted effort for a buggy test.

Stupid me. Yes I should have used might_sleep. It just did not trigger
here as I did not have the driver compiled into the kernel.

Sorry,

	tglx

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Christian Borntraeger]

This patch seems to fix it. Comments?

kernel_init uses lock_kernel to serialize the initialization. If the driver
is compiled into the kernel, the probe function of e1000e is called under 
this lock and therefore the WARN_ON(preempt_count()) triggers. We can now 
1. remove this WARN_ON
2. check for SYSTEM_RUNNING

This patch implements 2.

Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>

diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c b/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c
index 0b6095b..cca9731 100644
--- a/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c
+++ b/drivers/net/e1000e/ich8lan.c
@@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ static s32 e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan(struct e1000_hw *hw)
 	u32 extcnf_ctrl;
 	u32 timeout = PHY_CFG_TIMEOUT;
 
-	WARN_ON(preempt_count());
+	WARN_ON(system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING && preempt_count());
 
 	if (!mutex_trylock(&nvm_mutex)) {
 		WARN(1, KERN_ERR "e1000e mutex contention. Owned by pid %d\n",

Re: [regression] Latest git has WARN_ON storm with e1000e driver

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:41:49 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> This is caused by holding a spinlock (__driver_attach) and checking
> for preempt_count (e1000_acquire_swflag_ich8lan).
> 
> I suggest to revert this commit, since we cannot take a mutex while
> holding a spinlock.
> The simple solution of replacing the mutex with a spinlock does not
> work, since we call msleep on several places in the code. Replacing
> all that code doesnt look like 2.6.27 material.

hi,

could you do a run with frame pointers enabled?
that should clear up the stack noise....


-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org