lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] perf/arm-dmc620: Fix dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock/cpu_hotplug_lock circular lock dependency
From

On 7/28/23 11:06, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 11:17:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The following circular locking dependency was reported when running
>> cpus online/offline test on an arm64 system.
>>
>> [ 84.195923] Chain exists of:
>> dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock --> cpu_hotplug_lock --> cpuhp_state-down
>>
>> [ 84.207305] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> [ 84.213212] CPU0 CPU1
>> [ 84.217729] ---- ----
>> [ 84.222247] lock(cpuhp_state-down);
>> [ 84.225899] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
>> [ 84.232068] lock(cpuhp_state-down);
>> [ 84.238237] lock(dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
>> [ 84.242236]
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>
>> The problematic locking order seems to be
>>
>> lock(dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock) --> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock)
>>
>> This locking order happens when dmc620_pmu_get_irq() is called from
>> dmc620_pmu_device_probe(). Since dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock is used for
>> protecting the dmc620_pmu_irqs structure only, we don't actually need
>> to hold the lock when adding a new instance to the CPU hotplug subsystem.
>>
>> Fix this possible deadlock scenario by releasing the lock before
>> calling cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls() and reacquiring it afterward.
>> To avoid the possibility of 2 racing dmc620_pmu_get_irq() calls inserting
>> duplicated dmc620_pmu_irq structures with the same irq number, a dummy
>> entry is inserted before releasing the lock which will block a competing
>> thread from inserting another irq structure of the same irq number.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c
>> index 9d0f01c4455a..7cafd4dd4522 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c
>> @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ struct dmc620_pmu_irq {
>> refcount_t refcount;
>> unsigned int irq_num;
>> unsigned int cpu;
>> + unsigned int valid;
>> };
>>
>> struct dmc620_pmu {
>> @@ -423,9 +424,14 @@ static struct dmc620_pmu_irq *__dmc620_pmu_get_irq(int irq_num)
>> struct dmc620_pmu_irq *irq;
>> int ret;
>>
>> - list_for_each_entry(irq, &dmc620_pmu_irqs, irqs_node)
>> - if (irq->irq_num == irq_num && refcount_inc_not_zero(&irq->refcount))
>> + list_for_each_entry(irq, &dmc620_pmu_irqs, irqs_node) {
>> + if (irq->irq_num != irq_num)
>> + continue;
>> + if (!irq->valid)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN); /* Try again later */
> It looks like this can bubble up to the probe() routine. Does the driver
> core handle -EAGAIN coming back from a probe routine?
Right, I should add code to handle this error condition. I think it can
be handled in dmc620_pmu_get_irq(). The important thing is to release
the mutex, wait a few ms and try again. What do you think?
>
>> + if (refcount_inc_not_zero(&irq->refcount))
>> return irq;
>> + }
>>
>> irq = kzalloc(sizeof(*irq), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!irq)
>> @@ -447,13 +453,23 @@ static struct dmc620_pmu_irq *__dmc620_pmu_get_irq(int irq_num)
>> if (ret)
>> goto out_free_irq;
>>
>> - ret = cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls(cpuhp_state_num, &irq->node);
>> - if (ret)
>> - goto out_free_irq;
>> -
>> irq->irq_num = irq_num;
>> list_add(&irq->irqs_node, &dmc620_pmu_irqs);
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Release dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock before calling
>> + * cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls() and reacquire it afterward.
>> + */
>> + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
>> + ret = cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls(cpuhp_state_num, &irq->node);
>> + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock);
>> +
>> + if (ret) {
>> + list_del(&irq->irqs_node);
>> + goto out_free_irq;
>> + }
>> +
>> + irq->valid = true;
> Do you actually need a new flag here, or could we use a refcount of zero
> to indicate that the irq descriptor is still being constructed?

A refcount of zero can also mean that an existing irq is about to be
removed. Right? So I don't think we can use that for this purpose.
Besides, there is a 4-byte hole in the structure anyway for arm64.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-03 03:39    [W:0.095 / U:0.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site