Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: IRQ affinity notifiers vs RT | From | Ben Hutchings <> | Date | Fri, 30 Aug 2013 22:29:15 +0100 |
| |
Sebastian, I saw you came up with a fix for this but apparently without seeing my earlier message:
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 00:31 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Alexandra Kossovsky reported the following lockdep splat when testing an > out-of-tree version of sfc on 3.6-rt. The problem is specific to RT, > and we haven't tested anything later but I think it's still unfixed. > > > ====================================================== > > [ INFO: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ] > > 3.6.11.2-rt33.39.el6rt.x86_64.debug #1 Tainted: G O > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > insmod/3076 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: > > (&(&(&gcwq->lock)->lock)->wait_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81589a78>] rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x48/0x2f0 > > > > and this task is already holding: > > (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.....}, at: [<ffffffff810ec226>] irq_set_affinity+0x46/0x80 > > irq_set_affinity() holds the irq_desc lock, and then schedules a work > item to call the IRQ affinity notifier. > > > which would create a new lock dependency: > > (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.....} -> (&(&(&gcwq->lock)->lock)->wait_lock){+.+...} > > > > but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock: > > (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.....} > > ... which became HARDIRQ-irq-safe at: > > [<ffffffff810adba2>] mark_irqflags+0x172/0x190 > > [<ffffffff810af2c4>] __lock_acquire+0x344/0x4e0 > > [<ffffffff810af4ea>] lock_acquire+0x8a/0x140 > > [<ffffffff8158ac50>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80 > > [<ffffffff810edfae>] handle_level_irq+0x1e/0x100 > > [<ffffffff810044e1>] handle_irq+0x71/0x190 > > [<ffffffff815943ad>] do_IRQ+0x5d/0xe0 > > [<ffffffff8158b32c>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x13 > > [<ffffffff81d16d9d>] tsc_init+0x24/0x102 > > [<ffffffff81d13d77>] x86_late_time_init+0xf/0x11 > > [<ffffffff81d10cfe>] start_kernel+0x312/0x3c6 > > [<ffffffff81d1032d>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x131/0x136 > > [<ffffffff81d1041f>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xed/0xf4 > > Obviously, irq_desc is used in hard-IRQ context. > > > to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: > > (&(&(&gcwq->lock)->lock)->wait_lock){+.+...} > > ... which became HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe at: > > ... [<ffffffff810adb50>] mark_irqflags+0x120/0x190 > > [<ffffffff810af2c4>] __lock_acquire+0x344/0x4e0 > > [<ffffffff810af4ea>] lock_acquire+0x8a/0x140 > > [<ffffffff8158ac50>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80 > > [<ffffffff81589a78>] rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x48/0x2f0 > > [<ffffffff8158a1b6>] rt_spin_lock+0x16/0x40 > > [<ffffffff8106cf99>] create_worker+0x69/0x220 > > [<ffffffff81d2bae5>] init_workqueues+0x24b/0x3f8 > > [<ffffffff810001c2>] do_one_initcall+0x42/0x170 > > [<ffffffff81d10775>] kernel_init+0xe5/0x17a > > [<ffffffff81593c24>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 > [...] > > Workqueue code uses spin_lock_irq() on the workqueue lock, which with > PREEMPT_RT enabled doesn't actually block IRQs. > > In 3.6, the irq_cpu_rmap functions relies on a workqueue flush to finish > any outstanding notifications before freeing the cpu_rmap that they use. > This won't be reliable if the notification is scheduled after releasing > the irq_desc lock. > > However, following commit 896f97ea95c1 ('lib: cpu_rmap: avoid flushing > all workqueues') in 3.8, I think that it is sufficient to do only > kref_get(&desc->affinity_notify->kref) in __irq_set_affinity_locked() > and then call schedule_work() in irq_set_affinity() after releasing the > lock. Something like this (untested):
Does the following make sense to you?
Ben.
> diff --git a/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/octeon-irq.c b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/octeon-irq.c > index 9d36774..0406481 100644 > --- a/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/octeon-irq.c > +++ b/arch/mips/cavium-octeon/octeon-irq.c > @@ -635,7 +635,8 @@ static void octeon_irq_cpu_offline_ciu(struct irq_data *data) > cpumask_clear(&new_affinity); > cpumask_set_cpu(cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask), &new_affinity); > } > - __irq_set_affinity_locked(data, &new_affinity); > + /* XXX No-one else calls this; why does this chip need it? */ > + __irq_set_affinity_locked(data, &new_affinity, NULL); > } > > static int octeon_irq_ciu_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data, > diff --git a/include/linux/irq.h b/include/linux/irq.h > index f04d3ba..de992f4 100644 > --- a/include/linux/irq.h > +++ b/include/linux/irq.h > @@ -380,7 +380,9 @@ extern void remove_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irqaction *act); > > extern void irq_cpu_online(void); > extern void irq_cpu_offline(void); > -extern int __irq_set_affinity_locked(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *cpumask); > +extern int __irq_set_affinity_locked(struct irq_data *data, > + const struct cpumask *cpumask, > + struct irq_affinity_notify **notify); > > #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS > > diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c > index 514bcfd..157afa2 100644 > --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c > +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c > @@ -162,12 +162,16 @@ int irq_do_set_affinity(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask, > return ret; > } > > -int __irq_set_affinity_locked(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask) > +int __irq_set_affinity_locked(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask, > + struct irq_affinity_notify **notify) > { > struct irq_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip(data); > struct irq_desc *desc = irq_data_to_desc(data); > int ret = 0; > > + if (notify) > + *notify = NULL; > + > if (!chip || !chip->irq_set_affinity) > return -EINVAL; > > @@ -178,9 +182,9 @@ int __irq_set_affinity_locked(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask) > irq_copy_pending(desc, mask); > } > > - if (desc->affinity_notify) { > + if (notify && desc->affinity_notify) { > kref_get(&desc->affinity_notify->kref); > - schedule_work(&desc->affinity_notify->work); > + *notify = desc->affinity_notify; > } > irqd_set(data, IRQD_AFFINITY_SET); > > @@ -196,6 +200,7 @@ int __irq_set_affinity_locked(struct irq_data *data, const struct cpumask *mask) > int irq_set_affinity(unsigned int irq, const struct cpumask *mask) > { > struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq); > + struct irq_affinity_notify *notify; > unsigned long flags; > int ret; > > @@ -203,8 +208,13 @@ int irq_set_affinity(unsigned int irq, const struct cpumask *mask) > return -EINVAL; > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags); > - ret = __irq_set_affinity_locked(irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc), mask); > + ret = __irq_set_affinity_locked(irq_desc_get_irq_data(desc), mask, > + ¬ify); > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags); > + > + if (notify) > + schedule_work(¬ify->work); > + > return ret; > } > > --- END --- > > Ben. >
-- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
| |