From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2335FC001DE for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2023 01:38:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=a7lALVqPoydJZvkgntapD4BfXcbkGoNDajZs1DxkFEI=; b=1awW4GxORZMExd 6lz8FBTpJAvVq2K5Gp9DV9vte4IOi+kFit/NBGP/wlAIaBP0he+B8wZu07FI6XoygaEuCJoCa+hpx Q4vjn2mi0mHi7cMxPN2sjPZSWhwvrT2jkAz5KId7kA5JZZH1TwsVHy3RsWC1quIsDULkxUVGcOLkj 94QMjAhCmgUA2Zayxuy1wKQRFOduCEKo7ZIOA0xDqZZ8cDbskV1EhhECUsyZ22GxAzGLP2OA4ADbr RnKCEhUJy6M7Uqb4GgO+RBS6jq3fv5bLyqZYlMrmMbtRuT6EeElm9l5EdlKeemOOFSb0ugSeeC2We o8EuwcLCW+vrMRJKmXeQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qRNHd-006NdF-1n; Thu, 03 Aug 2023 01:37:45 +0000 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qRNHa-006NcT-12 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 03 Aug 2023 01:37:43 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1691026660; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gFyxYnCCTmcGQJx1BbPXjjm8EFdLLNTv6TCuOVH8H18=; b=dDqxCtCKsWJ07GcH1kft/etUhFlMQiRlxG/WcFq2VtFtsQwF+D73ZNinYOmtHM75rzZd2A 2TRyvERpCKzGxTz9a/9hlSsEYEl7OAbA30boNfq7c2rZbsdJ7DgMhhaM8Kfi1I9PQfpM/8 ZwFVPLxT58327v2zpl7+sxsQ+NQ6IYE= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-323-6wv1v-H_MBK4Bgs7JpG5WQ-1; Wed, 02 Aug 2023 21:37:33 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 6wv1v-H_MBK4Bgs7JpG5WQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 611FA8910F9; Thu, 3 Aug 2023 01:37:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.22.18.41] (unknown [10.22.18.41]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0B5F7FA4; Thu, 3 Aug 2023 01:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <62d4b353-0237-9ec6-a63e-8a7a6764aba5@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2023 21:37:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] perf/arm-dmc620: Fix dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock/cpu_hotplug_lock circular lock dependency Content-Language: en-US To: Will Deacon Cc: Mark Rutland , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Robin Murphy References: <20230722031729.3913953-1-longman@redhat.com> <20230728150614.GF21718@willie-the-truck> From: Waiman Long In-Reply-To: <20230728150614.GF21718@willie-the-truck> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230802_183742_445308_31D9D02D X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 31.20 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 7/28/23 11:06, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 11:17:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> The following circular locking dependency was reported when running >> cpus online/offline test on an arm64 system. >> >> [ 84.195923] Chain exists of: >> dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock --> cpu_hotplug_lock --> cpuhp_state-down >> >> [ 84.207305] Possible unsafe locking scenario: >> >> [ 84.213212] CPU0 CPU1 >> [ 84.217729] ---- ---- >> [ 84.222247] lock(cpuhp_state-down); >> [ 84.225899] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock); >> [ 84.232068] lock(cpuhp_state-down); >> [ 84.238237] lock(dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); >> [ 84.242236] >> *** DEADLOCK *** >> >> The problematic locking order seems to be >> >> lock(dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock) --> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock) >> >> This locking order happens when dmc620_pmu_get_irq() is called from >> dmc620_pmu_device_probe(). Since dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock is used for >> protecting the dmc620_pmu_irqs structure only, we don't actually need >> to hold the lock when adding a new instance to the CPU hotplug subsystem. >> >> Fix this possible deadlock scenario by releasing the lock before >> calling cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls() and reacquiring it afterward. >> To avoid the possibility of 2 racing dmc620_pmu_get_irq() calls inserting >> duplicated dmc620_pmu_irq structures with the same irq number, a dummy >> entry is inserted before releasing the lock which will block a competing >> thread from inserting another irq structure of the same irq number. >> >> Suggested-by: Robin Murphy >> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long >> --- >> drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c >> index 9d0f01c4455a..7cafd4dd4522 100644 >> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c >> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c >> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ struct dmc620_pmu_irq { >> refcount_t refcount; >> unsigned int irq_num; >> unsigned int cpu; >> + unsigned int valid; >> }; >> >> 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? > >> + if (refcount_inc_not_zero(&irq->refcount)) >> return irq; >> + } >> >> irq = kzalloc(sizeof(*irq), GFP_KERNEL); >> if (!irq) >> @@ -447,13 +453,23 @@ static struct dmc620_pmu_irq *__dmc620_pmu_get_irq(int irq_num) >> if (ret) >> goto out_free_irq; >> >> - ret = cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls(cpuhp_state_num, &irq->node); >> - if (ret) >> - goto out_free_irq; >> - >> irq->irq_num = irq_num; >> list_add(&irq->irqs_node, &dmc620_pmu_irqs); >> >> + /* >> + * Release dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock before calling >> + * cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls() and reacquire it afterward. >> + */ >> + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); >> + ret = cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls(cpuhp_state_num, &irq->node); >> + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); >> + >> + if (ret) { >> + list_del(&irq->irqs_node); >> + goto out_free_irq; >> + } >> + >> + irq->valid = true; > Do you actually need a new flag here, or could we use a refcount of zero > to indicate that the irq descriptor is still being constructed? A refcount of zero can also mean that an existing irq is about to be removed. Right? So I don't think we can use that for this purpose. Besides, there is a 4-byte hole in the structure anyway for arm64. Cheers, Longman _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel