Re: [bug report] soc: xilinx: Fix for call trace due to the usage of smp_processor_id()

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>]

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:10:45AM +0000, Jain, Ronak wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Buddhabhatti, Jay <jay.buddhabhatti@amd.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 3:25 PM
> > To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>;
> > haribabu.gattem@xilinx.com; Jain, Ronak <ronak.jain@amd.com>
> > Cc: Simek, Michal <michal.simek@amd.com>; linux-arm-
> > kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > Subject: RE: [bug report] soc: xilinx: Fix for call trace due to the usage of
> > smp_processor_id()
> > 
> > +@Jain, Ronak
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 5:50 PM
> > > To: haribabu.gattem@xilinx.com
> > > Cc: Buddhabhatti, Jay <jay.buddhabhatti@amd.com>; Simek, Michal
> > > <michal.simek@amd.com>; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> > > Subject: [bug report] soc: xilinx: Fix for call trace due to the usage of
> > > smp_processor_id()
> > >
> > > Hello HariBabu Gattem,
> > >
> > > The patch daed80ed0758: "soc: xilinx: Fix for call trace due to the usage of
> > > smp_processor_id()" from Oct 26, 2023 (linux-next), leads to the following
> > > Smatch static checker warning:
> > >
> > > 	kernel/irq/manage.c:2614 __request_percpu_irq()
> > > 	warn: sleeping in atomic context
> > >
> > > drivers/soc/xilinx/xlnx_event_manager.c
> > >    610          cpu = get_cpu();
> > >                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > The patch adds get_cpu() which disables preemption.
> > >
> > >    611          per_cpu(cpu_number1, cpu) = cpu;
> > >    612          ret = request_percpu_irq(virq_sgi, xlnx_event_handler,
> > > "xlnx_event_mgmt",
> > >                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > request_percpu_irq() does a sleeping allocation so it's a sleeping in atomic
> > bug.
> > >
> > >    613                                   &cpu_number1);
> > >    614          put_cpu();
> > >
> 
> I am working on this issue, and I tried to reproduce the issue but I
> couldn't. First, I tried enabling the below config flags for kernel
> preemption and then ran the smatch command but didn't get the warning
> you were mentioning.
> 
> The configs I enabled,
> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y

This config would detect the issue at runtime.

> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y
> CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
> CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y
> 
> The smatch command I ran,
> ~/smatch/smatch_scripts/kchecker --spammy drivers/soc/xilinx/xlnx_event_manager.c
> ~/smatch/smatch_scripts/kchecker --spammy kernel/irq/manage.c
> make ARCH=arm64 CHECK="~/smatch/smatch -p=kernel" C=2 drivers/soc/xilinx/xlnx_event_manager.o
> 
> Could you please help me with the config you used for this issue and
> would be good if you could share the complete steps(the smatch
> commands) to reproduce the issue.

I'm sorry, to generate this warning you need to rebuild the cross
function database a few times.  Which is simple enough, but each time
you rebuild the database takes something like 6 hours.

smatch_scripts/build_kernel_data.sh

Each time you rebuild it, it adds one more branch to the call trees.  In
this case building it twice would work I guess.  Then it would be:
~/smatch/smatch_scripts/kchecker --spammy kernel/irq/manage.c

That prints the warning quoted above and then I do:

~/smatch/smatch_data/db/smdb.py preempt __request_percpu_irq
xlnx_event_init_sgi() <- disables preempt
-> request_percpu_irq()
   -> __request_percpu_irq()

And review the call tree to figure out who to report the warnings too.

But it's probably more interesting to enable CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
and do runtime testing.

regards,
dan carpenter

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel