* Invalid wait context in qman_update_cgr()
@ 2023-03-23 15:39 Vladimir Oltean
2023-03-23 15:58 ` Sean Anderson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Oltean @ 2023-03-23 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev, Sean Anderson; +Cc: Madalin Bucur, Camelia Groza
Hi,
Since commit 914f8b228ede ("soc: fsl: qbman: Add CGR update function"),
I have started seeing the following stack trace on the NXP T1040RDB
board:
[ 10.215392] =============================
[ 10.219403] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
[ 10.223413] 6.2.0-rc8-07010-ga9b9500ffaac-dirty #18 Not tainted
[ 10.229338] -----------------------------
[ 10.233347] swapper/0/0 is trying to lock:
[ 10.237442] c0000000ff1cda20 (&portal->cgr_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: .qman_update_cgr+0x40/0xb0
[ 10.254270] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 10.259320] context-{2:2}
[ 10.259323] no locks held by swapper/0/0.
[ 10.259327] stack backtrace:
[ 10.259329] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.2.0-rc8-07010-ga9b9500ffaac-dirty #18
[ 10.259336] Hardware name: fsl,T1040RDB e5500 0x80241021 CoreNet Generic
[ 10.259341] Call Trace:
[ 10.259344] [c000000002163280] [c0000000015263d0] .dump_stack_lvl+0x8c/0xd0
[ 10.273180] (unreliable)
[ 10.288587] [c000000002163300] [c0000000000e1714] .__lock_acquire+0x24c4/0x2500
[ 10.288598] [c000000002163450] [c0000000000e24cc] .lock_acquire+0x13c/0x410
[ 10.288608] [c000000002163560] [c00000000156983c] ._raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x6c/0x120
[ 10.297764] [c0000000021635f0] [c000000000938990] .qman_update_cgr+0x40/0xb0
[ 10.312820] [c000000002163680] [c000000000938a20] .qman_update_cgr_smp_call+0x20/0x40
[ 10.312830] [c000000002163700] [c0000000001609c8] .__flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x118/0x3f0
[ 10.324241] [c0000000021637a0] [c000000000023f04] .smp_ipi_demux_relaxed+0xb4/0xc0
[ 10.324258] [c000000002163830] [c000000000020bf4] .doorbell_exception+0x114/0x410
[ 10.338529] [c0000000021638d0] [c00000000001dde4] exc_0x280_common+0x110/0x114
[ 10.338540] --- interrupt: 280 at .e500_idle+0x30/0x6c
[ 10.338547] NIP: c00000000001f104 LR: c00000000001f104 CTR: c00000000001f0d4
[ 10.338552] REGS: c000000002163940 TRAP: 0280 Not tainted (6.2.0-rc8-07010-ga9b9500ffaac-dirty)
[ 10.338557] MSR: 0000000080029002
[ 10.355087] <CE,EE,ME> CR: 24042284 XER: 00000000
[ 10.355102] IRQMASK: 0
[ 10.355102] GPR00: 0000000000000000 c000000002163be0 c000000001c0a000 c00000000001f0f4
[ 10.355102] GPR04: ffffffffffffffff
[ 10.363650] c000000002187f50 0000000000000000 00000000fd236000
[ 10.363650] GPR08: 0000000000000001 0000000000000001 0000000000000001 c000000002138f80
[ 10.363650] GPR12:
[ 10.373940] 0000000024042282 c000000002cf4000 000000007ff9382c 000000007fb2d3d0
[ 10.373940] GPR16: 000000007ff9381c 0000000000000000 0000000008d77cf3 000000007ff190dc
[ 10.373940] GPR20: 0000000000000001 000000007fb2d460 0000000000000000 000000007ffb5338
[ 10.373940] GPR24: 000000007fb2d3d4 0000000000000003 0000000000080000 c000000002187ff8
[ 10.373940] GPR28: 0000000000000001 c000000002187f50 0000000000000001 c000000002138f80
[ 10.558780] NIP [c00000000001f104] .e500_idle+0x30/0x6c
[ 10.564012] LR [c00000000001f104] .e500_idle+0x30/0x6c
[ 10.569156] --- interrupt: 280
[ 10.572210] [c000000002163be0] [c000000000008a54] .arch_cpu_idle+0x34/0xb0 (unreliable)
[ 10.580234] [c000000002163c50] [c0000000015691d8] .default_idle_call+0x98/0xf8
[ 10.587471] [c000000002163cc0] [c0000000000bda0c] .do_idle+0x13c/0x1e0
[ 10.594014] [c000000002163d60] [c0000000000bde08] .cpu_startup_entry+0x28/0x30
[ 10.601250] [c000000002163dd0] [c0000000000024f0] .rest_init+0x190/0x22c
[ 10.607963] [c000000002163e60] [c000000001d57958] .arch_post_acpi_subsys_init+0x0/0x4
[ 10.615809] [c000000002163ed0] [c000000001d58254] .start_kernel+0x8e4/0x934
[ 10.622783] [c000000002163f90] [c000000000000a5c] start_here_common+0x1c/0x20
Do you have any clues what is wrong?
Thanks,
Vladimir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: Invalid wait context in qman_update_cgr()
2023-03-23 15:39 Invalid wait context in qman_update_cgr() Vladimir Oltean
@ 2023-03-23 15:58 ` Sean Anderson
2023-03-23 18:47 ` Vladimir Oltean
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sean Anderson @ 2023-03-23 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Oltean, netdev; +Cc: Madalin Bucur, Camelia Groza
On 3/23/23 11:39, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since commit 914f8b228ede ("soc: fsl: qbman: Add CGR update function"),
> I have started seeing the following stack trace on the NXP T1040RDB
> board:
>
> [ 10.215392] =============================
> [ 10.219403] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
> [ 10.223413] 6.2.0-rc8-07010-ga9b9500ffaac-dirty #18 Not tainted
> [ 10.229338] -----------------------------
> [ 10.233347] swapper/0/0 is trying to lock:
> [ 10.237442] c0000000ff1cda20 (&portal->cgr_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: .qman_update_cgr+0x40/0xb0
> [ 10.254270] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 10.259320] context-{2:2}
> [ 10.259323] no locks held by swapper/0/0.
> [ 10.259327] stack backtrace:
> [ 10.259329] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.2.0-rc8-07010-ga9b9500ffaac-dirty #18
> [ 10.259336] Hardware name: fsl,T1040RDB e5500 0x80241021 CoreNet Generic
> [ 10.259341] Call Trace:
> [ 10.259344] [c000000002163280] [c0000000015263d0] .dump_stack_lvl+0x8c/0xd0
> [ 10.273180] (unreliable)
> [ 10.288587] [c000000002163300] [c0000000000e1714] .__lock_acquire+0x24c4/0x2500
> [ 10.288598] [c000000002163450] [c0000000000e24cc] .lock_acquire+0x13c/0x410
> [ 10.288608] [c000000002163560] [c00000000156983c] ._raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x6c/0x120
> [ 10.297764] [c0000000021635f0] [c000000000938990] .qman_update_cgr+0x40/0xb0
> [ 10.312820] [c000000002163680] [c000000000938a20] .qman_update_cgr_smp_call+0x20/0x40
> [ 10.312830] [c000000002163700] [c0000000001609c8] .__flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x118/0x3f0
> [ 10.324241] [c0000000021637a0] [c000000000023f04] .smp_ipi_demux_relaxed+0xb4/0xc0
> [ 10.324258] [c000000002163830] [c000000000020bf4] .doorbell_exception+0x114/0x410
> [ 10.338529] [c0000000021638d0] [c00000000001dde4] exc_0x280_common+0x110/0x114
> [ 10.338540] --- interrupt: 280 at .e500_idle+0x30/0x6c
> [ 10.338547] NIP: c00000000001f104 LR: c00000000001f104 CTR: c00000000001f0d4
> [ 10.338552] REGS: c000000002163940 TRAP: 0280 Not tainted (6.2.0-rc8-07010-ga9b9500ffaac-dirty)
> [ 10.338557] MSR: 0000000080029002
> [ 10.355087] <CE,EE,ME> CR: 24042284 XER: 00000000
> [ 10.355102] IRQMASK: 0
> [ 10.355102] GPR00: 0000000000000000 c000000002163be0 c000000001c0a000 c00000000001f0f4
> [ 10.355102] GPR04: ffffffffffffffff
> [ 10.363650] c000000002187f50 0000000000000000 00000000fd236000
> [ 10.363650] GPR08: 0000000000000001 0000000000000001 0000000000000001 c000000002138f80
> [ 10.363650] GPR12:
> [ 10.373940] 0000000024042282 c000000002cf4000 000000007ff9382c 000000007fb2d3d0
> [ 10.373940] GPR16: 000000007ff9381c 0000000000000000 0000000008d77cf3 000000007ff190dc
> [ 10.373940] GPR20: 0000000000000001 000000007fb2d460 0000000000000000 000000007ffb5338
> [ 10.373940] GPR24: 000000007fb2d3d4 0000000000000003 0000000000080000 c000000002187ff8
> [ 10.373940] GPR28: 0000000000000001 c000000002187f50 0000000000000001 c000000002138f80
> [ 10.558780] NIP [c00000000001f104] .e500_idle+0x30/0x6c
> [ 10.564012] LR [c00000000001f104] .e500_idle+0x30/0x6c
> [ 10.569156] --- interrupt: 280
> [ 10.572210] [c000000002163be0] [c000000000008a54] .arch_cpu_idle+0x34/0xb0 (unreliable)
> [ 10.580234] [c000000002163c50] [c0000000015691d8] .default_idle_call+0x98/0xf8
> [ 10.587471] [c000000002163cc0] [c0000000000bda0c] .do_idle+0x13c/0x1e0
> [ 10.594014] [c000000002163d60] [c0000000000bde08] .cpu_startup_entry+0x28/0x30
> [ 10.601250] [c000000002163dd0] [c0000000000024f0] .rest_init+0x190/0x22c
> [ 10.607963] [c000000002163e60] [c000000001d57958] .arch_post_acpi_subsys_init+0x0/0x4
> [ 10.615809] [c000000002163ed0] [c000000001d58254] .start_kernel+0x8e4/0x934
> [ 10.622783] [c000000002163f90] [c000000000000a5c] start_here_common+0x1c/0x20
>
> Do you have any clues what is wrong?
Do you have PREEMPT_RT+PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING enabled?
If so, the problem seems to be that we're in unthreaded hardirq context
(LD_WAIT_SPIN), but the lock is LD_WAIT_CONFIG. Maybe we should be
using some other smp_call function? Maybe we should be using
spin_lock (like qman_create_cgr) and not spin_lock_irqsave (like
qman_delete_cgr)?
--Sean
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: Invalid wait context in qman_update_cgr()
2023-03-23 15:58 ` Sean Anderson
@ 2023-03-23 18:47 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-03-23 21:41 ` Sean Anderson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Oltean @ 2023-03-23 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sean Anderson; +Cc: netdev, Madalin Bucur, Camelia Groza
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:58:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> > Do you have any clues what is wrong?
>
> Do you have PREEMPT_RT+PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING enabled?
No, just CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING.
> If so, the problem seems to be that we're in unthreaded hardirq context
> (LD_WAIT_SPIN), but the lock is LD_WAIT_CONFIG. Maybe we should be
> using some other smp_call function? Maybe we should be using
> spin_lock (like qman_create_cgr) and not spin_lock_irqsave (like
> qman_delete_cgr)?
Plain spin_lock() has the same wait context as spin_lock_irqsave(),
and so, by itself, would not help. Maybe you mean raw_spin_lock() which
always has a wait context compatible with LD_WAIT_SPIN here.
Note - I'm not suggesting that replacing with a raw spinlock is the
correct solution here.
FWIW, a straight conversion from spinlocks to raw spinlocks produces
this other stack trace. It would be good if you could take a look too.
The lockdep usage tracker is clean prior to commit 914f8b228ede ("soc:
fsl: qbman: Add CGR update function").
[ 56.650501] ================================
[ 56.654782] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
[ 56.659063] 6.3.0-rc2-00993-gdadb180cb16f-dirty #2028 Not tainted
[ 56.665170] --------------------------------
[ 56.669449] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
[ 56.675467] swapper/2/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[ 56.680625] ffff1dc165e124e0 (&portal->cgr_lock){?.+.}-{2:2}, at: qman_update_cgr+0x60/0xfc
[ 56.689054] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
[ 56.693943] lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x2fc
[ 56.697720] _raw_spin_lock+0x5c/0xc0
[ 56.701494] qman_create_cgr+0xbc/0x2b4
[ 56.705440] dpaa_eth_cgr_init+0xc0/0x160
[ 56.709560] dpaa_eth_probe+0x6a8/0xf44
[ 56.713506] platform_probe+0x68/0xdc
[ 56.717282] really_probe+0x148/0x2ac
[ 56.721053] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0xe0
[ 56.725432] driver_probe_device+0xd8/0x160
[ 56.729724] __driver_attach+0x9c/0x1ac
[ 56.733668] bus_for_each_dev+0x74/0xd4
[ 56.737612] driver_attach+0x24/0x30
[ 56.741294] bus_add_driver+0xe4/0x1e8
[ 56.745151] driver_register+0x60/0x128
[ 56.749096] __platform_driver_register+0x28/0x34
[ 56.753911] dpaa_load+0x34/0x74
[ 56.757250] do_one_initcall+0x74/0x2f0
[ 56.761192] kernel_init_freeable+0x2ac/0x510
[ 56.765660] kernel_init+0x24/0x1dc
[ 56.769261] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
[ 56.772943] irq event stamp: 274366
[ 56.776441] hardirqs last enabled at (274365): [<ffffdc95dfdae554>] cpuidle_enter_state+0x158/0x540
[ 56.785601] hardirqs last disabled at (274366): [<ffffdc95dfdac1b0>] el1_interrupt+0x24/0x64
[ 56.794063] softirqs last enabled at (274330): [<ffffdc95de6104d8>] __do_softirq+0x438/0x4ec
[ 56.802609] softirqs last disabled at (274323): [<ffffdc95de616610>] ____do_softirq+0x10/0x1c
[ 56.811156]
[ 56.811156] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 56.817692] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 56.817692]
[ 56.823620] CPU0
[ 56.826075] ----
[ 56.828530] lock(&portal->cgr_lock);
[ 56.832306] <Interrupt>
[ 56.834934] lock(&portal->cgr_lock);
[ 56.838883]
[ 56.838883] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 56.838883]
[ 56.844811] no locks held by swapper/2/0.
[ 56.848832]
[ 56.848832] stack backtrace:
[ 56.853199] CPU: 2 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/2 Not tainted 6.3.0-rc2-00993-gdadb180cb16f-dirty #2028
[ 56.861917] Hardware name: LS1043A RDB Board (DT)
[ 56.866634] Call trace:
[ 56.869090] dump_backtrace+0x9c/0xf8
[ 56.872772] show_stack+0x18/0x24
[ 56.876104] dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0xac
[ 56.879788] dump_stack+0x18/0x24
[ 56.883123] print_usage_bug.part.0+0x290/0x348
[ 56.887678] mark_lock+0x77c/0x960
[ 56.891102] __lock_acquire+0xa54/0x1f90
[ 56.895046] lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x2fc
[ 56.898731] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x6c/0xdc
[ 56.903112] qman_update_cgr+0x60/0xfc
[ 56.906885] qman_update_cgr_smp_call+0x1c/0x30
[ 56.911440] __flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x15c/0x2f4
[ 56.916775] generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x14/0x20
[ 56.922891] ipi_handler+0xb4/0x304
[ 56.926404] handle_percpu_devid_irq+0x8c/0x144
[ 56.930959] generic_handle_domain_irq+0x2c/0x44
[ 56.935596] gic_handle_irq+0x44/0xc4
[ 56.939281] call_on_irq_stack+0x24/0x4c
[ 56.943225] do_interrupt_handler+0x80/0x84
[ 56.947431] el1_interrupt+0x34/0x64
[ 56.951030] el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x24
[ 56.955151] el1h_64_irq+0x64/0x68
[ 56.958570] cpuidle_enter_state+0x15c/0x540
[ 56.962865] cpuidle_enter+0x38/0x50
[ 56.966467] do_idle+0x218/0x2a0
[ 56.969714] cpu_startup_entry+0x28/0x2c
[ 56.973654] secondary_start_kernel+0x138/0x15c
[ 56.978209] __secondary_switched+0xb8/0xbc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: Invalid wait context in qman_update_cgr()
2023-03-23 18:47 ` Vladimir Oltean
@ 2023-03-23 21:41 ` Sean Anderson
2023-03-24 12:57 ` Vladimir Oltean
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sean Anderson @ 2023-03-23 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Oltean; +Cc: netdev, Madalin Bucur, Camelia Groza
On 3/23/23 14:47, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:58:00AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> > Do you have any clues what is wrong?
>>
>> Do you have PREEMPT_RT+PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING enabled?
>
> No, just CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING.
>
>> If so, the problem seems to be that we're in unthreaded hardirq context
>> (LD_WAIT_SPIN), but the lock is LD_WAIT_CONFIG. Maybe we should be
>> using some other smp_call function? Maybe we should be using
>> spin_lock (like qman_create_cgr) and not spin_lock_irqsave (like
>> qman_delete_cgr)?
>
> Plain spin_lock() has the same wait context as spin_lock_irqsave(),
> and so, by itself, would not help. Maybe you mean raw_spin_lock() which
> always has a wait context compatible with LD_WAIT_SPIN here.
>
> Note - I'm not suggesting that replacing with a raw spinlock is the
> correct solution here.
Well, it's either this or switch to another function like
smp_call_function which calls its callback in softirq/threaded hardirq
context.
> FWIW, a straight conversion from spinlocks to raw spinlocks produces
> this other stack trace. It would be good if you could take a look too.
> The lockdep usage tracker is clean prior to commit 914f8b228ede ("soc:
> fsl: qbman: Add CGR update function").
Presumably you mean ef2a8d5478b9 ("net: dpaa: Adjust queue depth on rate
change"), which is the first commit to introduce a user for
qman_update_cgr_safe?
> [ 56.650501] ================================
> [ 56.654782] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> [ 56.659063] 6.3.0-rc2-00993-gdadb180cb16f-dirty #2028 Not tainted
> [ 56.665170] --------------------------------
> [ 56.669449] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
> [ 56.675467] swapper/2/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
> [ 56.680625] ffff1dc165e124e0 (&portal->cgr_lock){?.+.}-{2:2}, at: qman_update_cgr+0x60/0xfc
> [ 56.689054] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> [ 56.693943] lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x2fc
> [ 56.697720] _raw_spin_lock+0x5c/0xc0
I think we just need to use raw_spin_lock_irqsave in qman_create_cgr.
> [ 56.701494] qman_create_cgr+0xbc/0x2b4
> [ 56.705440] dpaa_eth_cgr_init+0xc0/0x160
> [ 56.709560] dpaa_eth_probe+0x6a8/0xf44
> [ 56.713506] platform_probe+0x68/0xdc
> [ 56.717282] really_probe+0x148/0x2ac
> [ 56.721053] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0xe0
> [ 56.725432] driver_probe_device+0xd8/0x160
> [ 56.729724] __driver_attach+0x9c/0x1ac
> [ 56.733668] bus_for_each_dev+0x74/0xd4
> [ 56.737612] driver_attach+0x24/0x30
> [ 56.741294] bus_add_driver+0xe4/0x1e8
> [ 56.745151] driver_register+0x60/0x128
> [ 56.749096] __platform_driver_register+0x28/0x34
> [ 56.753911] dpaa_load+0x34/0x74
> [ 56.757250] do_one_initcall+0x74/0x2f0
> [ 56.761192] kernel_init_freeable+0x2ac/0x510
> [ 56.765660] kernel_init+0x24/0x1dc
> [ 56.769261] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> [ 56.772943] irq event stamp: 274366
> [ 56.776441] hardirqs last enabled at (274365): [<ffffdc95dfdae554>] cpuidle_enter_state+0x158/0x540
> [ 56.785601] hardirqs last disabled at (274366): [<ffffdc95dfdac1b0>] el1_interrupt+0x24/0x64
> [ 56.794063] softirqs last enabled at (274330): [<ffffdc95de6104d8>] __do_softirq+0x438/0x4ec
> [ 56.802609] softirqs last disabled at (274323): [<ffffdc95de616610>] ____do_softirq+0x10/0x1c
> [ 56.811156]
> [ 56.811156] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 56.817692] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 56.817692]
> [ 56.823620] CPU0
> [ 56.826075] ----
> [ 56.828530] lock(&portal->cgr_lock);
> [ 56.832306] <Interrupt>
> [ 56.834934] lock(&portal->cgr_lock);
> [ 56.838883]
> [ 56.838883] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 56.838883]
> [ 56.844811] no locks held by swapper/2/0.
> [ 56.848832]
> [ 56.848832] stack backtrace:
> [ 56.853199] CPU: 2 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/2 Not tainted 6.3.0-rc2-00993-gdadb180cb16f-dirty #2028
> [ 56.861917] Hardware name: LS1043A RDB Board (DT)
> [ 56.866634] Call trace:
> [ 56.869090] dump_backtrace+0x9c/0xf8
> [ 56.872772] show_stack+0x18/0x24
> [ 56.876104] dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0xac
> [ 56.879788] dump_stack+0x18/0x24
> [ 56.883123] print_usage_bug.part.0+0x290/0x348
> [ 56.887678] mark_lock+0x77c/0x960
> [ 56.891102] __lock_acquire+0xa54/0x1f90
> [ 56.895046] lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x2fc
> [ 56.898731] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x6c/0xdc
> [ 56.903112] qman_update_cgr+0x60/0xfc
> [ 56.906885] qman_update_cgr_smp_call+0x1c/0x30
> [ 56.911440] __flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x15c/0x2f4
> [ 56.916775] generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x14/0x20
> [ 56.922891] ipi_handler+0xb4/0x304
> [ 56.926404] handle_percpu_devid_irq+0x8c/0x144
> [ 56.930959] generic_handle_domain_irq+0x2c/0x44
> [ 56.935596] gic_handle_irq+0x44/0xc4
> [ 56.939281] call_on_irq_stack+0x24/0x4c
> [ 56.943225] do_interrupt_handler+0x80/0x84
> [ 56.947431] el1_interrupt+0x34/0x64
> [ 56.951030] el1h_64_irq_handler+0x18/0x24
> [ 56.955151] el1h_64_irq+0x64/0x68
> [ 56.958570] cpuidle_enter_state+0x15c/0x540
> [ 56.962865] cpuidle_enter+0x38/0x50
> [ 56.966467] do_idle+0x218/0x2a0
> [ 56.969714] cpu_startup_entry+0x28/0x2c
> [ 56.973654] secondary_start_kernel+0x138/0x15c
> [ 56.978209] __secondary_switched+0xb8/0xbc
--Sean
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: Invalid wait context in qman_update_cgr()
2023-03-23 21:41 ` Sean Anderson
@ 2023-03-24 12:57 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-03-27 19:33 ` Sean Anderson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Oltean @ 2023-03-24 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sean Anderson; +Cc: netdev, Madalin Bucur, Camelia Groza
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:41:04PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
> Well, it's either this or switch to another function like
> smp_call_function which calls its callback in softirq/threaded hardirq
> context.
Okay.
> > FWIW, a straight conversion from spinlocks to raw spinlocks produces
> > this other stack trace. It would be good if you could take a look too.
> > The lockdep usage tracker is clean prior to commit 914f8b228ede ("soc:
> > fsl: qbman: Add CGR update function").
>
> Presumably you mean ef2a8d5478b9 ("net: dpaa: Adjust queue depth on rate
> change"), which is the first commit to introduce a user for
> qman_update_cgr_safe?
Not sure what is the objection to what I said here.
> > [ 56.650501] ================================
> > [ 56.654782] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> > [ 56.659063] 6.3.0-rc2-00993-gdadb180cb16f-dirty #2028 Not tainted
> > [ 56.665170] --------------------------------
> > [ 56.669449] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
> > [ 56.675467] swapper/2/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
> > [ 56.680625] ffff1dc165e124e0 (&portal->cgr_lock){?.+.}-{2:2}, at: qman_update_cgr+0x60/0xfc
> > [ 56.689054] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> > [ 56.693943] lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x2fc
> > [ 56.697720] _raw_spin_lock+0x5c/0xc0
>
> I think we just need to use raw_spin_lock_irqsave in qman_create_cgr.
Ok, could you please look at submitting some patches that fix the lockdep issues?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: Invalid wait context in qman_update_cgr()
2023-03-24 12:57 ` Vladimir Oltean
@ 2023-03-27 19:33 ` Sean Anderson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sean Anderson @ 2023-03-27 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Oltean; +Cc: netdev, Madalin Bucur, Camelia Groza
On 3/24/23 08:57, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:41:04PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> Well, it's either this or switch to another function like
>> smp_call_function which calls its callback in softirq/threaded hardirq
>> context.
>
> Okay.
>
>> > FWIW, a straight conversion from spinlocks to raw spinlocks produces
>> > this other stack trace. It would be good if you could take a look too.
>> > The lockdep usage tracker is clean prior to commit 914f8b228ede ("soc:
>> > fsl: qbman: Add CGR update function").
>>
>> Presumably you mean ef2a8d5478b9 ("net: dpaa: Adjust queue depth on rate
>> change"), which is the first commit to introduce a user for
>> qman_update_cgr_safe?
>
> Not sure what is the objection to what I said here.
The first commit introduces the function with no users. The commit I referenced
adds a user.
>> > [ 56.650501] ================================
>> > [ 56.654782] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
>> > [ 56.659063] 6.3.0-rc2-00993-gdadb180cb16f-dirty #2028 Not tainted
>> > [ 56.665170] --------------------------------
>> > [ 56.669449] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
>> > [ 56.675467] swapper/2/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
>> > [ 56.680625] ffff1dc165e124e0 (&portal->cgr_lock){?.+.}-{2:2}, at: qman_update_cgr+0x60/0xfc
>> > [ 56.689054] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
>> > [ 56.693943] lock_acquire+0x1e4/0x2fc
>> > [ 56.697720] _raw_spin_lock+0x5c/0xc0
>>
>> I think we just need to use raw_spin_lock_irqsave in qman_create_cgr.
>
> Ok, could you please look at submitting some patches that fix the lockdep issues?
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20230327192841.952688-1-sean.anderson@seco.com/
--Sean
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-27 19:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-03-23 15:39 Invalid wait context in qman_update_cgr() Vladimir Oltean
2023-03-23 15:58 ` Sean Anderson
2023-03-23 18:47 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-03-23 21:41 ` Sean Anderson
2023-03-24 12:57 ` Vladimir Oltean
2023-03-27 19:33 ` Sean Anderson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox