From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 16:11:05 +0100
Subject: arm64 lockdep splat
In-Reply-To: <1498661397.15177.12.camel@redhat.com>
References: <1498661397.15177.12.camel@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20170628151105.GC8252@leverpostej>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:49:57AM -0400, Mark Salter wrote:
> Hi Mark.

Hi Mark,

> I'm seeing this with lock debugging turned on and booting with ACPI:
> 
> [????0.137762] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(irqs_disabled_flags(flags))?
> [????0.137773] ------------[ cut here ]------------?
> [????0.137785] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 12 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2881 lockdep_trace_alloc+0xb4/0xbc?
> [????0.137788] Modules linked in:?
> [????0.137793]??
> [????0.137797] CPU: 0 PID: 12 Comm: cpuhp/0 Not tainted 4.11.0-10.el7a.aarch64.debug #1?
> [????0.137800] Hardware name: HPE ProLiant m400 Server/ProLiant m400 Server, BIOS U02 08/19/2016?
> [????0.137803] task: ffff800fc656d000 task.stack: ffff800fc65c8000?
> [????0.137807] PC is at lockdep_trace_alloc+0xb4/0xbc?
> [????0.137810] LR is at lockdep_trace_alloc+0xb4/0xbc?
> ...
> [????0.137939] [<ffff00000814559c>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0xb4/0xbc?
> [????0.137944] [<ffff0000082b4fa0>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x48/0x400?
> [????0.137949] [<ffff000008737ac8>] armpmu_alloc+0x38/0x1e4?
> [????0.137954] [<ffff000008738588>] arm_pmu_acpi_cpu_starting+0x170/0x1c4?
> [????0.137958] [<ffff0000080d5f6c>] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x100/0xcc0?
> [????0.137961] [<ffff0000080d758c>] cpuhp_thread_fun+0xd8/0x12c?
> [????0.137966] [<ffff000008104670>] smpboot_thread_fn+0x170/0x27c?
> [????0.137970] [<ffff0000080fe910>] kthread+0x114/0x140?
> [????0.137975] [<ffff0000080833d0>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x40?

Sorry about this; I have a partial fix for this, but nothing complete
yet.

> Specifically, warning about possible __GFP_FS reclaim with interrupts off.
> Interrupts are disabled for cpuhp startup threads before CPUHP_AP_ONLINE, Is
> there any reason why CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_ACPI_STARTING can't be moved after
> CPUHP_AP_ONLINE? 

I'll need to go digging into this. I can't immediately recall why
CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_ACPI_STARTING and CPUHP_AP_PERF_ARM_STARTING need to
be prior to CPUHP_AP_ONLINE.

I'm confused by the relationship with CPUHP_AP_PERF_ONLINE, and I think
we might have other subtle breakage here in other perf drivers.

Thanks for pointing this out -- this isn't an avenue I'd considered for
fixing this.

> Or we could enabled irqs in arm_pmu_acpi_cpu_starting()?

I don't beleive that this is safe, given the CPU isn't fully up yet.
Interrupts are presumably disabled with good reason.

> Or change the alloc flags?

Doing that's a first step, but we'll subsequently hit similar issues
when fiddling with the irqs, and I haven't yet found a way to make that
work.

Thanks,
Mark.