Re: [PATCH v9 09/12] lib/vsprintf: Make use of fwnode API to obtain node names and separators
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Date: 2020-01-03 18:36:00
Also in:
linux-acpi, lkml
On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 03:42:53PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
On Fri 2020-01-03 13:21:45, Sakari Ailus wrote:quoted
Hi Guenter, On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 02:20:41PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:quoted
Hi, On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 03:32:16PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:quoted
Instead of implementing our own means of discovering parent nodes, node names or counting how many parents a node has, use the newly added functions in the fwnode API to obtain that information. Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> ---This patch results in a lockdep splat when running one of my qemu emulations. See below for log and bisect results. A complete log is available at https://kerneltests.org/builders/qemu-arm-master/builds/1408/steps/qemubuildcommand/logs/stdio GuenterThank you for reporting this. I looked into the issue, and indeed I can conform the patch introduces this as it takes the devtree_lock for printing the name of the fwnode. There isI guess that you meant "is not".quoted
however chance of a deadlock in practice as the code in mm/slub.c does not deal with fwnodes (in which case acquiring devtree_lock could be possible), maybe for other reasons as well. The patch however introduces an unpleasant source of such warnings.I agree that it is a false positive. alloc/free is called in OF code under devtree_lock. But OF code is not called from alloc/free (slub.c) and it should not happen.
Assuming that memory allocation is indeed called from code holding devtree_lock: The problem, as I see it, is that the order of acquiring locks is different. In OF code, the order is devtree_lock (&n->list_lock)->rlock Elsewhere, in %pOF print sequences, it is (&n->list_lock)->rlock devtree_lock The OF code, while holding devtree_lock, may try to allocate or release memory and is waiting for (&n->list_lock)->rlock. At the same time, some other thread may try to print %pOF, has acquired (&n->list_lock)->rlock, and is waiting for devtree_lock. Are you sure that this can not happen ? Thanks, Guenter
lockdep sees the cycle only because the chains are connected via printk() and logbuf_lock.quoted
One approach to address this could be not allocating memory while holding devtree_lock spinlock. That seems entirely feasible. But could also releasing memory cause something to be printed, effectively causing the same problem?I expect that &n->list_lock)->rlock will be needed in kfree() as well. Anyway, IMHO, allocation outside devtree_lock spinlock would create hairy and tricky code. The number of needed "cache_entries" need to be counted under devtree_lock before the allocation. It means that we would need to take and release the lock twice. It might create a bunch of possible races. For example, when new entries are added in the mean time. Or when this function is called twice in parallel.quoted
Perhaps a safest way to fix this could be returning to use dn->full_name for printing node names, in which case the devtree_lock would no longer be taken for printing names. The effect would be though that there would be again one more user for the full_name field, information that can be reconstructed from the node's parents.Would this avoid using devtree_lock in all %pO? modifiers? Removing the lock usage in vsprintf() would make sense from two reasons: + It would allow to use %pOF from inside drivers/of/ code called under devtree_lock. The current implementation would cause a deadlock because of the recursion. + There is a huge effort to make printk() lockless. Any lock in vsprintf() is just a call for troubles. We probably should not have allowed this in the first place. Finally, this problem will be gone when printk uses a lockless ringbuffer. I hope that it will happen either for-5.6 or 5.7. The most tricky part, the ringbuffer itself is in good shape now, see https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191128015235.12940-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de Temporary solution would be to disable lockdep in vsprintf() code. But I would really prefer to avoid the lock in vsprintf() at all. Best Regards, Petrquoted
quoted
--- ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.5.0-rc4-00066-g738d2902773e #1 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock: c1313b00 (logbuf_lock){-.-.}, at: vprintk_emit+0x68/0x2d4 but task is already holding lock: ef030b90 (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: free_debug_processing+0x38/0x418 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){..-.}: ___slab_alloc.constprop.23+0x12c/0x798 __slab_alloc.constprop.22+0x44/0x70 __kmalloc+0x384/0x41c of_populate_phandle_cache+0xcc/0x148 of_core_init+0x8/0xbc driver_init+0x1c/0x2c kernel_init_freeable+0xac/0x1b4 kernel_init+0x8/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20 0x0 -> #1 (devtree_lock){....}: of_get_parent+0x18/0x34 of_fwnode_get_parent+0x34/0x40 fwnode_count_parents+0x28/0x58 fwnode_full_name_string+0x18/0xa0 device_node_string+0x490/0x4f0 pointer+0x440/0x4d8 vsnprintf+0x1bc/0x3d8 vscnprintf+0xc/0x24 vprintk_store+0x34/0x204 vprintk_emit+0x94/0x2d4 vprintk_default+0x20/0x28 printk+0x30/0x54 exynos4_pm_init_power_domain+0x220/0x258 do_one_initcall+0x8c/0x440 kernel_init_freeable+0x150/0x1b4 kernel_init+0x8/0x118 ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20 0x0 -> #0 (logbuf_lock){-.-.}: lock_acquire+0xec/0x290 _raw_spin_lock+0x38/0x48 vprintk_emit+0x68/0x2d4 vprintk_default+0x20/0x28 printk+0x30/0x54 unwind_frame+0x6a8/0x6fc walk_stackframe+0x2c/0x38 __save_stack_trace+0x84/0x8c stack_trace_save+0x3c/0x5c set_track+0x40/0x9c free_debug_processing+0x1a4/0x418 __slab_free+0x2d4/0x510 kmem_cache_free+0x44c/0x49c rcu_core+0x348/0x994 __do_softirq+0x164/0x668 irq_exit+0x16c/0x170 __handle_domain_irq+0x80/0xec gic_handle_irq+0x58/0x9c __irq_svc+0x70/0xb0 raid6_neon8_gen_syndrome_real+0x264/0x39c raid6_neon8_gen_syndrome_real+0x264/0x39c other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: logbuf_lock --> devtree_lock --> &(&n->list_lock)->rlock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&(&n->list_lock)->rlock); lock(devtree_lock); lock(&(&n->list_lock)->rlock); lock(logbuf_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 2 locks held by swapper/0/1: #0: c131466c (rcu_callback){....}, at: rcu_core+0x304/0x994 #1: ef030b90 (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: free_debug_processing+0x38/0x418 stack backtrace: CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.5.0-rc4-00066-g738d2902773e #1 Hardware name: SAMSUNG EXYNOS (Flattened Device Tree) [<c0113264>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c010e448>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) [<c010e448>] (show_stack) from [<c0c9b754>] (dump_stack+0xa4/0xd0) [<c0c9b754>] (dump_stack) from [<c018cbd8>] (check_noncircular+0x258/0x274) [<c018cbd8>] (check_noncircular) from [<c019043c>] (__lock_acquire+0x1870/0x2860) [<c019043c>] (__lock_acquire) from [<c018e088>] (lock_acquire+0xec/0x290) [<c018e088>] (lock_acquire) from [<c0cbf278>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x38/0x48) [<c0cbf278>] (_raw_spin_lock) from [<c01a1f84>] (vprintk_emit+0x68/0x2d4) [<c01a1f84>] (vprintk_emit) from [<c01a2210>] (vprintk_default+0x20/0x28) [<c01a2210>] (vprintk_default) from [<c01a2844>] (printk+0x30/0x54) [<c01a2844>] (printk) from [<c0113210>] (unwind_frame+0x6a8/0x6fc) [<c0113210>] (unwind_frame) from [<c010ddf0>] (walk_stackframe+0x2c/0x38) [<c010ddf0>] (walk_stackframe) from [<c010df54>] (__save_stack_trace+0x84/0x8c) [<c010df54>] (__save_stack_trace) from [<c01c2d40>] (stack_trace_save+0x3c/0x5c) [<c01c2d40>] (stack_trace_save) from [<c02ae258>] (set_track+0x40/0x9c) [<c02ae258>] (set_track) from [<c02b06a8>] (free_debug_processing+0x1a4/0x418) [<c02b06a8>] (free_debug_processing) from [<c02b0bf0>] (__slab_free+0x2d4/0x510) [<c02b0bf0>] (__slab_free) from [<c02b17ac>] (kmem_cache_free+0x44c/0x49c) [<c02b17ac>] (kmem_cache_free) from [<c01bd608>] (rcu_core+0x348/0x994) [<c01bd608>] (rcu_core) from [<c010230c>] (__do_softirq+0x164/0x668) [<c010230c>] (__do_softirq) from [<c0131310>] (irq_exit+0x16c/0x170) [<c0131310>] (irq_exit) from [<c01a3740>] (__handle_domain_irq+0x80/0xec) [<c01a3740>] (__handle_domain_irq) from [<c0630828>] (gic_handle_irq+0x58/0x9c) [<c0630828>] (gic_handle_irq) from [<c0101a70>] (__irq_svc+0x70/0xb0) Exception stack(0xef19bd30 to 0xef19bd78) bd20: c0d43e50 c0d43e60 ef19bebc c0d43e70 bd40: c0d43e20 c0d43e10 00000400 00000430 00000440 00000450 00000460 00000470 bd60: c0d43e40 ef19bd80 c0d43e30 c0625c00 20000013 ffffffff [<c0101a70>] (__irq_svc) from [<c0625c00>] (raid6_neon8_gen_syndrome_real+0x264/0x39c) --- Bisect: # bad: [738d2902773e30939a982c8df7a7f94293659810] Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net # good: [219d54332a09e8d8741c1e1982f5eae56099de85] Linux 5.4 git bisect start 'HEAD' 'v5.4' # bad: [8c39f71ee2019e77ee14f88b1321b2348db51820] Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net git bisect bad 8c39f71ee2019e77ee14f88b1321b2348db51820 # good: [3b397c7ccafe0624018cb09fc96729f8f6165573] Merge tag 'regmap-v5.5' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regmap git bisect good 3b397c7ccafe0624018cb09fc96729f8f6165573 # bad: [89d57dddd7d319ded00415790a0bb3c954b7e386] Merge tag 'media/v5.5-1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mchehab/linux-media git bisect bad 89d57dddd7d319ded00415790a0bb3c954b7e386 # good: [9e7a03233e02afd3ee061e373355f34d7254f1e6] Merge tag 'pm-5.5-rc1' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm git bisect good 9e7a03233e02afd3ee061e373355f34d7254f1e6 # good: [09578eacaaa44149738267083ccc050990409f86] Merge tag 'asoc-v5.5-2' of https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/sound into for-linus git bisect good 09578eacaaa44149738267083ccc050990409f86 # good: [1c7ae4a51298d52a21f63b2214657982036c7498] media: ad5820: Add support for of-autoload git bisect good 1c7ae4a51298d52a21f63b2214657982036c7498 # good: [99cf8a7074c4ce3ff3685cd389f54e7bd4bbf510] media: dt-bindings: Fix building error for dt_binding_check git bisect good 99cf8a7074c4ce3ff3685cd389f54e7bd4bbf510 # good: [782b59711e1561ee0da06bc478ca5e8249aa8d09] Merge branch 'acpi-mm' git bisect good 782b59711e1561ee0da06bc478ca5e8249aa8d09 # good: [0ca40f41d795fd91811e44506bb73d0b9ca33bdd] Merge branch 'patchwork' into v4l_for_linus git bisect good 0ca40f41d795fd91811e44506bb73d0b9ca33bdd # bad: [a00351687f8a05773c1c57be80a5bbca68fa9ae8] software node: remove DEV_PROP_MAX git bisect bad a00351687f8a05773c1c57be80a5bbca68fa9ae8 # good: [9af7706492f985867d070861fe39fee0fe41326f] lib/vsprintf: Remove support for %pF and %pf in favour of %pS and %ps git bisect good 9af7706492f985867d070861fe39fee0fe41326f # bad: [83abc5a77f3b028b8c845c39ce4053119e1de35b] lib/vsprintf: OF nodes are first and foremost, struct device_nodes git bisect bad 83abc5a77f3b028b8c845c39ce4053119e1de35b # bad: [a92eb7621b9fb2c28a588ce333d226f56fab6a85] lib/vsprintf: Make use of fwnode API to obtain node names and separators git bisect bad a92eb7621b9fb2c28a588ce333d226f56fab6a85 # good: [1586c5ae2f9310235b5e70abe712c73fc32eb98f] lib/vsprintf: Add a note on re-using %pf or %pF git bisect good 1586c5ae2f9310235b5e70abe712c73fc32eb98f # first bad commit: [a92eb7621b9fb2c28a588ce333d226f56fab6a85] lib/vsprintf: Make use of fwnode API to obtain node names and separators-- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus