Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor

From	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor
Date	2016-01-20 11:20 +0100
Message-ID	<qSY1Q-4Y7-29@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <qQ4ZQ-5t-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <qRfzP-gk-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSb17-4JX-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSHDI-23d-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qSVnk-3cB-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 20/01/16 12:59, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19-01-16, 16:49, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > I'm actually hitting this running sp2, on linux-pm/linux-next :/.
> 
> That's really bad .. Are you hitting this on Juno or x86 ?
> 

That's on TC2. I'll try to run the same on Juno and x86.

> And I am sure you would have hit that with your changes as well, but
> now its on the currently merged patches :(
> 
> >  ======================================================
> >  [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> >  4.4.0+ #445 Not tainted
> >  -------------------------------------------------------
> >  trace.sh/1723 is trying to acquire lock:
> >   (s_active#48){++++.+}, at: [<c01f78c8>] kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x4c/0x94
> > 
> >  but task is already holding lock:
> >   (od_dbs_cdata.mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c05824a0>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x34/0x5d4
> > 
> >  which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > 
> > 
> >  the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > 
> > -> #2 (od_dbs_cdata.mutex){+.+.+.}:
> >         [<c075b040>] mutex_lock_nested+0x7c/0x434
> >         [<c05824a0>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x34/0x5d4
> >         [<c0017c10>] return_to_handler+0x0/0x18
> > 
> > -> #1 (&policy->rwsem){+++++.}:
> >         [<c075ca8c>] down_read+0x58/0x94
> >         [<c057c244>] show+0x30/0x60
> >         [<c01f934c>] sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x90/0xfc
> >         [<c01f7ad8>] kernfs_seq_show+0x34/0x38
> >         [<c01a22ec>] seq_read+0x1e4/0x4e4
> >         [<c01f8694>] kernfs_fop_read+0x120/0x1a0
> >         [<c01794b4>] __vfs_read+0x3c/0xe0
> >         [<c017a378>] vfs_read+0x98/0x104
> >         [<c017a434>] SyS_read+0x50/0x90
> >         [<c000fd40>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c
> > 
> > -> #0 (s_active#48){++++.+}:
> >         [<c008238c>] lock_acquire+0xd4/0x20c
> >         [<c01f6ae4>] __kernfs_remove+0x288/0x328
> >         [<c01f78c8>] kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x4c/0x94
> >         [<c01fa024>] remove_files+0x44/0x88
> >         [<c01fa5a4>] sysfs_remove_group+0x50/0xa4
> >         [<c058285c>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3f0/0x5d4
> >         [<c0017c10>] return_to_handler+0x0/0x18
> > 
> >  other info that might help us debug this:
> > 
> >  Chain exists of:
> >   s_active#48 --> &policy->rwsem --> od_dbs_cdata.mutex
> > 
> >   Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > 
> >         CPU0                    CPU1
> >         ----                    ----
> >    lock(od_dbs_cdata.mutex);
> >                                 lock(&policy->rwsem);
> >                                 lock(od_dbs_cdata.mutex);
> >    lock(s_active#48);
> > 
> >   *** DEADLOCK ***
> > 
> >  5 locks held by trace.sh/1723:
> >   #0:  (sb_writers#6){.+.+.+}, at: [<c017beb8>] __sb_start_write+0xb4/0xc0
> >   #1:  (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c01f8418>] kernfs_fop_write+0x6c/0x1c8
> >   #2:  (s_active#35){.+.+.+}, at: [<c01f8420>] kernfs_fop_write+0x74/0x1c8
> >   #3:  (cpu_hotplug.lock){++++++}, at: [<c0029e6c>] get_online_cpus+0x48/0xb8
> >   #4:  (od_dbs_cdata.mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c05824a0>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x34/0x5d4
> > 
> >  stack backtrace:
> >  CPU: 2 PID: 1723 Comm: trace.sh Not tainted 4.4.0+ #445
> >  Hardware name: ARM-Versatile Express
> >  [<c001883c>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0013f50>] (show_stack+0x20/0x24)
> >  [<c0013f50>] (show_stack) from [<c044ad90>] (dump_stack+0x80/0xb4)
> >  [<c044ad90>] (dump_stack) from [<c0128edc>] (print_circular_bug+0x29c/0x2f0)
> >  [<c0128edc>] (print_circular_bug) from [<c0081708>] (__lock_acquire+0x163c/0x1d74)
> >  [<c0081708>] (__lock_acquire) from [<c008238c>] (lock_acquire+0xd4/0x20c)
> >  [<c008238c>] (lock_acquire) from [<c01f6ae4>] (__kernfs_remove+0x288/0x328)
> >  [<c01f6ae4>] (__kernfs_remove) from [<c01f78c8>] (kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x4c/0x94)
> >  [<c01f78c8>] (kernfs_remove_by_name_ns) from [<c01fa024>] (remove_files+0x44/0x88)
> >  [<c01fa024>] (remove_files) from [<c01fa5a4>] (sysfs_remove_group+0x50/0xa4)
> >  [<c01fa5a4>] (sysfs_remove_group) from [<c058285c>] (cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3f0/0x5d4)
> >  [<c058285c>] (cpufreq_governor_dbs) from [<c0017c10>] (return_to_handler+0x0/0x18)
> > 
> > Now, I couldn't yet make sense of this, but it seems to be
> > triggered by setting ondemand, printing its attributes and then
> > switching to conservative (that's what sp2 does, right?). Also, s_active
> > seems to come into play only when lockdep is enabled. Are you seeing
> > this as well?
> 
> There is something about the platform you are running this on.. I
> don't hit it most of the times in my exynos board (Dual A15), but x86
> and powerpc guys used to report this all the time. I have tried with
> both have-governor-per-policy and otherwise.
> 
> I have explained something similar in the earlier commits I pointed to
> you, here is the commit log:
> 
> http://pastebin.com/JbEJBLzU
> 

Yeah, saw that. I guess I have to stare at this thing more.

Thanks,

- Juri

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of  cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-01-15 17:40 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of  cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-01-18 07:00 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of  cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-01-19 17:50 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of  cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 08:30 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of  cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 11:20 +0100
          Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of  cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-01-20 11:30 +0100
            Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of  cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-01-20 11:40 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of  cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-01-20 11:20 +0100

csiph-web