arm: dts: adi-fmclidar1: Update i2c_afe_dac interface #932
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
According to the latest HDL changes: analogdevicesinc/hdl@62704f5 Signed-off-by: Dragos Bogdan <dragos.bogdan@analog.com>
commodo
approved these changes
Mar 12, 2020
commodo
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 10, 2020
I got the following lockdep splat while testing: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.8.0-rc7-00172-g021118712e59 #932 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ btrfs/229626 is trying to acquire lock: ffffffff828513f0 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at: alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450 but task is already holding lock: ffff889dd3889518 (&fs_info->scrub_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_scrub_dev+0x11c/0x630 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #7 (&fs_info->scrub_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930 btrfs_scrub_dev+0x11c/0x630 btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl.cold.21+0x10a/0x1d4 btrfs_ioctl+0x2799/0x30a0 ksys_ioctl+0x83/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #6 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930 btrfs_run_dev_stats+0x49/0x480 commit_cowonly_roots+0xb5/0x2a0 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x516/0xa60 sync_filesystem+0x6b/0x90 generic_shutdown_super+0x22/0x100 kill_anon_super+0xe/0x30 btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20 deactivate_locked_super+0x29/0x60 cleanup_mnt+0xb8/0x140 task_work_run+0x6d/0xb0 __prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x1cc/0x1e0 do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #5 (&fs_info->tree_log_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930 btrfs_commit_transaction+0x4bb/0xa60 sync_filesystem+0x6b/0x90 generic_shutdown_super+0x22/0x100 kill_anon_super+0xe/0x30 btrfs_kill_super+0x12/0x20 deactivate_locked_super+0x29/0x60 cleanup_mnt+0xb8/0x140 task_work_run+0x6d/0xb0 __prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x1cc/0x1e0 do_syscall_64+0x5c/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #4 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930 btrfs_record_root_in_trans+0x43/0x70 start_transaction+0xd1/0x5d0 btrfs_dirty_inode+0x42/0xd0 touch_atime+0xa1/0xd0 btrfs_file_mmap+0x3f/0x60 mmap_region+0x3a4/0x640 do_mmap+0x376/0x580 vm_mmap_pgoff+0xd5/0x120 ksys_mmap_pgoff+0x193/0x230 do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #3 (&mm->mmap_lock#2){++++}-{3:3}: __might_fault+0x68/0x90 _copy_to_user+0x1e/0x80 perf_read+0x141/0x2c0 vfs_read+0xad/0x1b0 ksys_read+0x5f/0xe0 do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 -> #2 (&cpuctx_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930 perf_event_init_cpu+0x88/0x150 perf_event_init+0x1db/0x20b start_kernel+0x3ae/0x53c secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 -> #1 (pmus_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x9f/0x930 perf_event_init_cpu+0x4f/0x150 cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xb1/0x900 _cpu_up.constprop.26+0x9f/0x130 cpu_up+0x7b/0xc0 bringup_nonboot_cpus+0x4f/0x60 smp_init+0x26/0x71 kernel_init_freeable+0x110/0x258 kernel_init+0xa/0x103 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #0 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x1272/0x2310 lock_acquire+0x9e/0x360 cpus_read_lock+0x39/0xb0 alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450 __btrfs_alloc_workqueue+0x15d/0x200 btrfs_alloc_workqueue+0x51/0x160 scrub_workers_get+0x5a/0x170 btrfs_scrub_dev+0x18c/0x630 btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl.cold.21+0x10a/0x1d4 btrfs_ioctl+0x2799/0x30a0 ksys_ioctl+0x83/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: cpu_hotplug_lock --> &fs_devs->device_list_mutex --> &fs_info->scrub_lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&fs_info->scrub_lock); lock(&fs_devs->device_list_mutex); lock(&fs_info->scrub_lock); lock(cpu_hotplug_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 2 locks held by btrfs/229626: #0: ffff88bfe8bb86e0 (&fs_devs->device_list_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_scrub_dev+0xbd/0x630 #1: ffff889dd3889518 (&fs_info->scrub_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_scrub_dev+0x11c/0x630 stack backtrace: CPU: 15 PID: 229626 Comm: btrfs Kdump: loaded Not tainted 5.8.0-rc7-00172-g021118712e59 #932 Hardware name: Quanta Tioga Pass Single Side 01-0030993006/Tioga Pass Single Side, BIOS F08_3A18 12/20/2018 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x78/0xa0 check_noncircular+0x165/0x180 __lock_acquire+0x1272/0x2310 lock_acquire+0x9e/0x360 ? alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450 cpus_read_lock+0x39/0xb0 ? alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450 alloc_workqueue+0x378/0x450 ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x80 __btrfs_alloc_workqueue+0x15d/0x200 btrfs_alloc_workqueue+0x51/0x160 scrub_workers_get+0x5a/0x170 btrfs_scrub_dev+0x18c/0x630 ? start_transaction+0xd1/0x5d0 btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl.cold.21+0x10a/0x1d4 btrfs_ioctl+0x2799/0x30a0 ? do_sigaction+0x102/0x250 ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0xca/0x160 ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x30 ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0xe0 ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x30 ? do_sigaction+0x102/0x250 ? ksys_ioctl+0x83/0xc0 ksys_ioctl+0x83/0xc0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x50/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 This happens because we're allocating the scrub workqueues under the scrub and device list mutex, which brings in a whole host of other dependencies. Because the work queue allocation is done with GFP_KERNEL, it can trigger reclaim, which can lead to a transaction commit, which in turns needs the device_list_mutex, it can lead to a deadlock. A different problem for which this fix is a solution. Fix this by moving the actual allocation outside of the scrub lock, and then only take the lock once we're ready to actually assign them to the fs_info. We'll now have to cleanup the workqueues in a few more places, so I've added a helper to do the refcount dance to safely free the workqueues. CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
According to the latest HDL changes:
analogdevicesinc/hdl@62704f5
Signed-off-by: Dragos Bogdan dragos.bogdan@analog.com