On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:17 PM Piyush Malgujar <pmalgujar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 01:18:49PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:46 PM Piyush Malgujar <pmalgujar@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Using irqsave/irqrestore locking variants to avoid any deadlock.
> > >
> >
> > I see you'll be resending this anyway so would you mind providing an
> > example of a deadlock that is possible with no-irqsave variants?
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Bart
> >
> Hi Bartosz,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
> Please find below the issue scenario:
> In the case when HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order is detected
> and interrupt occurs, deadlock could occur.
>
> ========================================================
> WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> 5.18.0-rc6 #4 Not tainted
> --------------------------------------------------------
> swapper/3/0 just changed the state of lock:
> ffff000110904cd8 (lock_class){-...}-{2:2}, at: handle_fasteoi_ack_irq+0x2c/0x1b0
> but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> (&txgpio->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}
>
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&txgpio->lock);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(lock_class);
> lock(&txgpio->lock);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(lock_class);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> ==========================================================
>
> Thanks,
> Piyush
> > > Signed-off-by: Piyush Malgujar <pmalgujar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
Thanks. What I meant exactly was: resend it with that info in the
commit message.
Bart
