Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Waiman Long <> | Subject | [PATCH v4] perf/arm-dmc620: Fix dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock/cpu_hotplug_lock circular lock dependency | Date | Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:44:46 -0400 |
| |
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() calls cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls(). 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 adding a new dmc620_pmu_get_irq_lock for protecting the call to __dmc620_pmu_get_irq() and taking dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock inside __dmc620_pmu_get_irq() only when dmc620_pmu_irqs is being searched or modified. As a result, cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls() won't be called with dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock held and cpu_hotplug_lock won't be acquired after dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock.
Suggested-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> --- drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c | 18 ++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c index 9d0f01c4455a..895971915f2d 100644 --- a/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_dmc620_pmu.c @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(dmc620_pmu_irqs); static DEFINE_MUTEX(dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); +static DEFINE_MUTEX(dmc620_pmu_get_irq_lock); struct dmc620_pmu_irq { struct hlist_node node; @@ -421,11 +422,18 @@ static irqreturn_t dmc620_pmu_handle_irq(int irq_num, void *data) static struct dmc620_pmu_irq *__dmc620_pmu_get_irq(int irq_num) { struct dmc620_pmu_irq *irq; + bool found = false; int ret; + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); list_for_each_entry(irq, &dmc620_pmu_irqs, irqs_node) - if (irq->irq_num == irq_num && refcount_inc_not_zero(&irq->refcount)) - return irq; + if (irq->irq_num == irq_num && refcount_inc_not_zero(&irq->refcount)) { + found = true; + break; + } + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); + if (found) + return irq; irq = kzalloc(sizeof(*irq), GFP_KERNEL); if (!irq) @@ -452,7 +460,9 @@ static struct dmc620_pmu_irq *__dmc620_pmu_get_irq(int irq_num) goto out_free_irq; irq->irq_num = irq_num; + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); list_add(&irq->irqs_node, &dmc620_pmu_irqs); + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); return irq; @@ -467,9 +477,9 @@ static int dmc620_pmu_get_irq(struct dmc620_pmu *dmc620_pmu, int irq_num) { struct dmc620_pmu_irq *irq; - mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); + mutex_lock(&dmc620_pmu_get_irq_lock); irq = __dmc620_pmu_get_irq(irq_num); - mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_irqs_lock); + mutex_unlock(&dmc620_pmu_get_irq_lock); if (IS_ERR(irq)) return PTR_ERR(irq); -- 2.31.1
| |