Re: [PATCH v3] perf/arm-dmc620: Fix dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock/cpu_hotplug_lock circular lock dependency

From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] perf/arm-dmc620: Fix dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock/cpu_hotplug_lock circular lock dependency
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 13:03:36 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <352465f6-394a-6f91-712d-85ed15588822@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230804165943.GG30679@willie-the-truck>

On 8/4/23 12:59, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 12:51:47PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 8/4/23 12:28, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>>>     struct dmc620_pmu {
>>>>>> @@ -423,9 +424,14 @@ static struct dmc620_pmu_irq *__dmc620_pmu_get_irq(int irq_num)
>>>>>>     	struct dmc620_pmu_irq *irq;
>>>>>>     	int ret;
>>>>>> -	list_for_each_entry(irq, &dmc620_pmu_irqs, irqs_node)
>>>>>> -		if (irq->irq_num == irq_num && refcount_inc_not_zero(&irq->refcount))
>>>>>> +	list_for_each_entry(irq, &dmc620_pmu_irqs, irqs_node) {
>>>>>> +		if (irq->irq_num != irq_num)
>>>>>> +			continue;
>>>>>> +		if (!irq->valid)
>>>>>> +			return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);	/* Try again later */
>>>>> It looks like this can bubble up to the probe() routine. Does the driver
>>>>> core handle -EAGAIN coming back from a probe routine?
>>>> Right, I should add code to handle this error condition. I think it can be
>>>> handled in dmc620_pmu_get_irq(). The important thing is to release the
>>>> mutex, wait a few ms and try again. What do you think?
>>> I don't really follow, but waiting a few ms and trying again sounds like
>>> a really nasty hack for something which doesn't appear to be constrained
>>> by broken hardware. In other words, we got ourselves into this mess, so
>>> we should be able to resolve it properly.
>>  From my point of view, the proper way to solve the problem is to reverse the
>> locking order. Since you don't to add a EXPORT statement to the core kernel
>> code, we will have to find a way around it by not holding the
>> dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock when cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls() is called.
>> Another alternative that I can think of is to add one more mutex that we
>> will hold just for the entirety of  __dmc620_pmu_get_irq() and take
>> dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock only when the linked list is being modified. That will
>> eliminate the need to introduce arbitrary wait as other caller of
>> __dmc620_pmu_get_irq() will wait in the new mutex. Will this work for you?
> Yes. To be honest, I think we've both spent far too much time trying to
> fix this (and I admire your persistence!), so adding a mutex to make it
> "obviously" correct sounds like the right thing to me. We can look at
> optimisations later if anybody cares.

Sorry to be too persistent sometimes:-) Will send out a new version soon.

Cheers,
Longman

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