From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com (Jan Glauber) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 15:08:54 +0200 Subject: Potential deadlock in vgic In-Reply-To: <20180504124742.GG10191@C02W217FHV2R.local> References: <20180504110343.GA10968@hc> <20180504124742.GG10191@C02W217FHV2R.local> Message-ID: <20180504130854.GA14663@hc> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 02:47:42PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote: > Hi Jan, > > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 01:03:44PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > enabling lockdep I see the following reported in the host when I start a kvm guest: > > > > [12399.954245] CPU0 CPU1 > > [12399.958762] ---- ---- > > [12399.963279] lock(&(&dist->lpi_list_lock)->rlock); > > [12399.968146] local_irq_disable(); > > [12399.974052] lock(&(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock)->rlock); > > [12399.981696] lock(&(&dist->lpi_list_lock)->rlock); > > [12399.989081] > > [12399.991688] lock(&(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock)->rlock); > > [12399.996989] > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > > > [12400.002897] 2 locks held by qemu-system-aar/5597: > > [12400.007587] #0: 0000000042beb9dc (&vcpu->mutex){+.+.}, at: kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x7c/0xa68 > > [12400.015411] #1: 00000000c45d644a (&(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: kvm_vgic_sync_hwstate+0x8c/0x328 > > > > > > There is nothing unusual in my config or qemu parameters, I can upload these > > if needed. I see this on ThunderX and ThunderX2 and also with older kernels > > (4.13+ distribution kernel). > > > > I tried making the lpi_list_lock irq safe but that just leads to different > > warnings. The locking here seems to be quite sophisticated and I'm not familiar > > with it. > > That's unfortunate. The problem here is that we end up violating our > locking order, which stipulates that ap_list_lock must be taken before > the lpi_list_lock. > > Give that we can take the ap_list_lock from interrupt context (timers > firing), the only solution I can easily think of is to change > lpi_list_lock takers to disable interrupts as well. > > Which warnings did you encounter with that approach? Hi Christoffer, making lpi_list_lock irq safe I get: [ 394.239174] ======================================================== [ 394.245515] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected [ 394.251857] 4.17.0-rc3-jang+ #72 Not tainted [ 394.256114] -------------------------------------------------------- [ 394.262454] qemu-system-aar/5596 just changed the state of lock: [ 394.268448] 00000000da3f09ef (&(&irq->irq_lock)->rlock#3){+...}, at: update_affinity+0x3c/0xa8 [ 394.277066] but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past: [ 394.284274] (&(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock)->rlock){-.-.} [ 394.284278] and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them. [ 394.300777] other info that might help us debug this: [ 394.307292] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 394.314066] CPU0 CPU1 [ 394.318584] ---- ---- [ 394.323101] lock(&(&irq->irq_lock)->rlock#3); [ 394.327622] local_irq_disable(); [ 394.333528] lock(&(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock)->rlock); [ 394.341172] lock(&(&irq->irq_lock)->rlock#3); [ 394.348210] [ 394.350817] lock(&(&vgic_cpu->ap_list_lock)->rlock); [ 394.356118] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 394.362025] 4 locks held by qemu-system-aar/5596: [ 394.366716] #0: 00000000719c7423 (&vcpu->mutex){+.+.}, at: kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x7c/0xa68 [ 394.374545] #1: 0000000060090841 (&kvm->srcu){....}, at: kvm_handle_guest_abort+0x11c/0xb70 [ 394.382984] #2: 0000000064647766 (&its->cmd_lock){+.+.}, at: vgic_mmio_write_its_cwriter+0x44/0xa8 [ 394.392022] #3: 0000000075f90a8a (&its->its_lock){+.+.}, at: vgic_its_process_commands.part.11+0xac/0x780