On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday, July 20, 2012, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> Running one program that continuously hotplugs and replugs a cpu
>> concurrently with another program that continuously writes to the
>> scaling_setspeed node eventually deadlocks with:
>>
>> =============================================
>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> 3.4.0 #37 Tainted: G W
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> filemonkey/122 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (s_active#13){++++.+}, at: [<c01a3d28>] sysfs_remove_dir+0x9c/0xb4
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (s_active#13){++++.+}, at: [<c01a22f0>] sysfs_write_file+0xe8/0x140
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0
>> ----
>> lock(s_active#13);
>> lock(s_active#13);
>>
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>
>> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>>
>> 2 locks held by filemonkey/122:
>> #0: (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c01a2230>] sysfs_write_file+0x28/0x140
>> #1: (s_active#13){++++.+}, at: [<c01a22f0>] sysfs_write_file+0xe8/0x140
>>
>> stack backtrace:
>> [<c0014fcc>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x120) from [<c00ca600>] (validate_chain+0x6f8/0x1054)
>> [<c00ca600>] (validate_chain+0x6f8/0x1054) from [<c00cb778>] (__lock_acquire+0x81c/0x8d8)
>> [<c00cb778>] (__lock_acquire+0x81c/0x8d8) from [<c00cb9c0>] (lock_acquire+0x18c/0x1e8)
>> [<c00cb9c0>] (lock_acquire+0x18c/0x1e8) from [<c01a3ba8>] (sysfs_addrm_finish+0xd0/0x180)
>> [<c01a3ba8>] (sysfs_addrm_finish+0xd0/0x180) from [<c01a3d28>] (sysfs_remove_dir+0x9c/0xb4)
>> [<c01a3d28>] (sysfs_remove_dir+0x9c/0xb4) from [<c02d0e5c>] (kobject_del+0x10/0x38)
>> [<c02d0e5c>] (kobject_del+0x10/0x38) from [<c02d0f74>] (kobject_release+0xf0/0x194)
>> [<c02d0f74>] (kobject_release+0xf0/0x194) from [<c0565a98>] (cpufreq_cpu_put+0xc/0x24)
>> [<c0565a98>] (cpufreq_cpu_put+0xc/0x24) from [<c05683f0>] (store+0x6c/0x74)
>> [<c05683f0>] (store+0x6c/0x74) from [<c01a2314>] (sysfs_write_file+0x10c/0x140)
>> [<c01a2314>] (sysfs_write_file+0x10c/0x140) from [<c014af44>] (vfs_write+0xb0/0x128)
>> [<c014af44>] (vfs_write+0xb0/0x128) from [<c014b06c>] (sys_write+0x3c/0x68)
>> [<c014b06c>] (sys_write+0x3c/0x68) from [<c000e0e0>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)
>>
>> This is because store() in cpufreq.c indirectly calls
>> kobject_get() via cpufreq_cpu_get() and is the last one to call
>> kobject_put() via cpufreq_cpu_put(). Sysfs code should not call
>> kobject_get() or kobject_put() directly (see the comment around
>> sysfs_schedule_callback() for more information).
>>
>> Fix this deadlock by introducing two new functions:
>>
>> struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_cpu_get_sysfs(unsigned int cpu)
>> void cpufreq_cpu_put_sysfs(struct cpufreq_policy *data)
>>
>> which do the same thing as cpufreq_cpu_{get,put}() but don't call
>> kobject functions.
>>
>> To easily trigger this deadlock you can insert an msleep() with a
>> reasonably large value right after the fail label at the bottom
>> of the store() function in cpufreq.c and then write
>> scaling_setspeed in one task and offline the cpu in another. The
>> first task will hang and be detected by the hung task detector.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks, applied to the pm-cpufreq branch of the linux-pm.git tree, will be
> pushed for v3.6.
>
Should this fix go to stable as well ?
Regards
Santosh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
