Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jul 2013 01:53:56 +0530 | From | "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <> | Subject | Re: workqueue, pci: INFO: possible recursive locking detected |
| |
On 07/17/2013 03:37 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > On 07/16/2013 10:41 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have been seeing this warning every time during boot. I haven't >> spent time digging through it though... Please let me know if >> any machine-specific info is needed. >> >> Regards, >> Srivatsa S. Bhat >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------- >> >> ============================================= >> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] >> 3.11.0-rc1-lockdep-fix-a #6 Not tainted >> --------------------------------------------- >> kworker/0:1/142 is trying to acquire lock: >> ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81077100>] flush_work+0x0/0xb0 >> >> but task is already holding lock: >> ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81075dd9>] process_one_work+0x169/0x610 >> >> other info that might help us debug this: >> Possible unsafe locking scenario: >> >> CPU0 >> ---- >> lock((&wfc.work)); >> lock((&wfc.work)); > >
Hi Lai,
Thanks for taking a look into this!
> > This is false negative,
I believe you meant false-positive...
> the two "wfc"s are different, they are > both on stack. flush_work() can't be deadlock in such case: > > void foo(void *) > { > ... > if (xxx) > work_on_cpu(..., foo, ...); > ... > } > > bar() > { > work_on_cpu(..., foo, ...); > } > > The complaint is caused by "work_on_cpu() uses a static lock_class_key". > we should fix work_on_cpu(). > (but the caller should also be careful, the foo()/local_pci_probe() is re-entering) > > But I can't find an elegant fix. > > long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg) > { > struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg }; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP > + static struct lock_class_key __key; > + INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn); > + lockdep_init_map(&wfc.work.lockdep_map, &wfc.work, &__key, 0); > +#else > INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn); > +#endif > schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work); > flush_work(&wfc.work); > return wfc.ret; > } >
Unfortunately that didn't seem to fix it.. I applied the patch shown below, and I got the same old warning.
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index f02c4a4..07d9a67 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -4754,7 +4754,13 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg) { struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg }; +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP + static struct lock_class_key __key; + INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn); + lockdep_init_map(&wfc.work.lockdep_map, "&wfc.work", &__key, 0); +#else INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn); +#endif schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work); flush_work(&wfc.work); return wfc.ret;
Warning: -------- wmi: Mapper loaded be2net 0000:11:00.0: irq 102 for MSI/MSI-X be2net 0000:11:00.0: enabled 1 MSI-x vector(s) be2net 0000:11:00.0: created 0 RSS queue(s) and 1 default RX queue be2net 0000:11:00.0: created 1 TX queue(s) pci 0000:11:04.0: [19a2:0710] type 00 class 0x020000 ============================================= [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 3.11.0-rc1-wq-fix #10 Not tainted --------------------------------------------- kworker/0:1/126 is trying to acquire lock: (&wfc.work){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810770f0>] flush_work+0x0/0xb0 but task is already holding lock: (&wfc.work){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81075dc9>] process_one_work+0x169/0x610 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 ---- lock(&wfc.work); lock(&wfc.work); *** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
3 locks held by kworker/0:1/126: #0: (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81075dc9>] process_one_work+0x169/0x610 #1: (&wfc.work){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81075dc9>] process_one_work+0x169/0x610 #2: (&__lockdep_no_validate__){......}, at: [<ffffffff81398ada>] device_attach+0x2a/0xc0 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 126 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.11.0-rc1-wq-fix #10 Hardware name: IBM -[8737R2A]-/00Y2738, BIOS -[B2E120RUS-1.20]- 11/30/2012 Workqueue: events work_for_cpu_fn ffff881036887408 ffff881036889668 ffffffff81619059 0000000000000003 ffff881036886a80 ffff881036889698 ffffffff810c1624 ffff881036886a80 ffff881036887408 ffff881036886a80 0000000000000000 ffff8810368896f8 Call Trace: [<ffffffff81619059>] dump_stack+0x59/0x80 [<ffffffff810c1624>] print_deadlock_bug+0xf4/0x100 [<ffffffff810c3104>] validate_chain+0x504/0x750 [<ffffffff810c365d>] __lock_acquire+0x30d/0x580 [<ffffffff810c3967>] lock_acquire+0x97/0x170 [<ffffffff810770f0>] ? start_flush_work+0x220/0x220 [<ffffffff81077138>] flush_work+0x48/0xb0 [<ffffffff810770f0>] ? start_flush_work+0x220/0x220 [<ffffffff810c2000>] ? mark_held_locks+0x80/0x130 [<ffffffff81074ceb>] ? queue_work_on+0x4b/0xa0 [<ffffffff810c2375>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x1d0 [<ffffffff810c244d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 [<ffffffff81077334>] work_on_cpu+0xa4/0xc0 [<ffffffff8106f940>] ? wqattrs_hash+0x190/0x190 [<ffffffff812d1ed0>] ? pci_pm_prepare+0x60/0x60 [<ffffffff812d1ffa>] __pci_device_probe+0x9a/0xe0 [<ffffffff8161ef90>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x50 [<ffffffff812d3302>] ? pci_dev_get+0x22/0x30 [<ffffffff812d334a>] pci_device_probe+0x3a/0x60 [<ffffffff8161ef90>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x50 [<ffffffff81398bdc>] really_probe+0x6c/0x320 [<ffffffff81398ed7>] driver_probe_device+0x47/0xa0 [<ffffffff81398fe0>] ? __driver_attach+0xb0/0xb0 [<ffffffff81399033>] __device_attach+0x53/0x60 [<ffffffff81396b24>] bus_for_each_drv+0x74/0xa0 [<ffffffff81398b50>] device_attach+0xa0/0xc0 [<ffffffff812c99f9>] pci_bus_add_device+0x39/0x60 [<ffffffff812ed341>] virtfn_add+0x251/0x3e0 [<ffffffff810c244d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 [<ffffffff812ed9bf>] sriov_enable+0x22f/0x3d0 [<ffffffff812edbad>] pci_enable_sriov+0x4d/0x60 [<ffffffffa0127045>] be_vf_setup+0x175/0x410 [be2net] [<ffffffffa012d3ca>] be_setup+0x37a/0x4b0 [be2net] [<ffffffffa012dac0>] be_probe+0x5c0/0x820 [be2net] [<ffffffff812d1f1e>] local_pci_probe+0x4e/0x90 [<ffffffff8106f958>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x18/0x30 [<ffffffff81075e3a>] process_one_work+0x1da/0x610 [<ffffffff81075dc9>] ? process_one_work+0x169/0x610 [<ffffffff810764fc>] worker_thread+0x28c/0x3a0 [<ffffffff81076270>] ? process_one_work+0x610/0x610 [<ffffffff8107da5e>] kthread+0xee/0x100 [<ffffffff8107d970>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70 [<ffffffff81628e5c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [<ffffffff8107d970>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70 be2net 0000:11:04.0: enabling device (0040 -> 0042) be2net 0000:11:04.0: Could not use PCIe error reporting be2net 0000:11:04.0: VF is not privileged to issue opcode 89-1 be2net 0000:11:04.0: VF is not privileged to issue opcode 125-1
Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat
| |