On Friday, April 3, 2020 3:47:52 PM CEST Qian Cai wrote:
>
> > On Apr 3, 2020, at 9:43 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, April 3, 2020 1:18:07 PM CEST Qian Cai wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Apr 3, 2020, at 5:29 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sunday, March 29, 2020 4:21:09 PM CEST Qian Cai wrote:
> >>>> Similar to the commit 0266d81e9bf5 ("acpi/processor: Prevent cpu hotplug
> >>>> deadlock") except this is for acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe():
> >>>>
> >>>> "The problem is that the work is scheduled on the current CPU from the
> >>>> hotplug thread associated with that CPU.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not required to invoke these functions via the workqueue because
> >>>> the hotplug thread runs on the target CPU already.
> >>>>
> >>>> Check whether current is a per cpu thread pinned on the target CPU and
> >>>> invoke the function directly to avoid the workqueue."
> >>>>
> >>>> Since CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR (for cstate.c) selects
> >>>> CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS (for processor_throttling.c) on x86, just
> >>>> make call_on_cpu() a static inline function from processor_throttling.c
> >>>> and use it in cstate.c.
> >>>>
> >>>> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> cpuhp/1/15 is trying to acquire lock:
> >>>> ffffc90003447a28 ((work_completion)(&wfc.work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __flush_work+0x4c6/0x630
> >>>>
> >>>> but task is already holding lock:
> >>>> ffffffffafa1c0e8 (cpuidle_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cpuidle_pause_and_lock+0x17/0x20
> >>>>
> >>>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >>>>
> >>>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >>>>
> >>>> -> #1 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}:
> >>>> cpus_read_lock+0x3e/0xc0
> >>>> irq_calc_affinity_vectors+0x5f/0x91
> >>>> __pci_enable_msix_range+0x10f/0x9a0
> >>>> pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity+0x13e/0x1f0
> >>>> pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity at drivers/pci/msi.c:1208
> >>>> pqi_ctrl_init+0x72f/0x1618 [smartpqi]
> >>>> pqi_pci_probe.cold.63+0x882/0x892 [smartpqi]
> >>>> local_pci_probe+0x7a/0xc0
> >>>> work_for_cpu_fn+0x2e/0x50
> >>>> process_one_work+0x57e/0xb90
> >>>> worker_thread+0x363/0x5b0
> >>>> kthread+0x1f4/0x220
> >>>> ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50
> >>>>
> >>>> -> #0 ((work_completion)(&wfc.work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> >>>> __lock_acquire+0x2244/0x32a0
> >>>> lock_acquire+0x1a2/0x680
> >>>> __flush_work+0x4e6/0x630
> >>>> work_on_cpu+0x114/0x160
> >>>> acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe+0x129/0x250
> >>>> acpi_processor_evaluate_cst+0x4c8/0x580
> >>>> acpi_processor_get_power_info+0x86/0x740
> >>>> acpi_processor_hotplug+0xc3/0x140
> >>>> acpi_soft_cpu_online+0x102/0x1d0
> >>>> cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x197/0x1120
> >>>> cpuhp_thread_fun+0x252/0x2f0
> >>>> smpboot_thread_fn+0x255/0x440
> >>>> kthread+0x1f4/0x220
> >>>> ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50
> >>>>
> >>>> other info that might help us debug this:
> >>>>
> >>>> Chain exists of:
> >>>> (work_completion)(&wfc.work) --> cpuhp_state-up --> cpuidle_lock
> >>>>
> >>>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >>>>
> >>>> CPU0 CPU1
> >>>> ---- ----
> >>>> lock(cpuidle_lock);
> >>>> lock(cpuhp_state-up);
> >>>> lock(cpuidle_lock);
> >>>> lock((work_completion)(&wfc.work));
> >>>>
> >>>> *** DEADLOCK ***
> >>>>
> >>>> 3 locks held by cpuhp/1/15:
> >>>> #0: ffffffffaf51ab10 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at: cpuhp_thread_fun+0x69/0x2f0
> >>>> #1: ffffffffaf51ad40 (cpuhp_state-up){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: cpuhp_thread_fun+0x69/0x2f0
> >>>> #2: ffffffffafa1c0e8 (cpuidle_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: cpuidle_pause_and_lock+0x17/0x20
> >>>>
> >>>> Call Trace:
> >>>> dump_stack+0xa0/0xea
> >>>> print_circular_bug.cold.52+0x147/0x14c
> >>>> check_noncircular+0x295/0x2d0
> >>>> __lock_acquire+0x2244/0x32a0
> >>>> lock_acquire+0x1a2/0x680
> >>>> __flush_work+0x4e6/0x630
> >>>> work_on_cpu+0x114/0x160
> >>>> acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe+0x129/0x250
> >>>> acpi_processor_evaluate_cst+0x4c8/0x580
> >>>> acpi_processor_get_power_info+0x86/0x740
> >>>> acpi_processor_hotplug+0xc3/0x140
> >>>> acpi_soft_cpu_online+0x102/0x1d0
> >>>> cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x197/0x1120
> >>>> cpuhp_thread_fun+0x252/0x2f0
> >>>> smpboot_thread_fn+0x255/0x440
> >>>> kthread+0x1f4/0x220
> >>>> ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> v2:
> >>>> Make call_on_cpu() a static inline function to avoid a compilation
> >>>> error when ACPI_PROCESSOR=m thanks to lkp@xxxxxxxxx.
> >>>>
> >>>> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c | 3 ++-
> >>>> drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c | 7 -------
> >>>> include/acpi/processor.h | 10 ++++++++++
> >>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> >>>> index caf2edccbad2..49ae4e1ac9cd 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c
> >>>> @@ -161,7 +161,8 @@ int acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe(unsigned int cpu,
> >>>>
> >>>> /* Make sure we are running on right CPU */
> >>>>
> >>>> - retval = work_on_cpu(cpu, acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe_cpu, cx);
> >>>> + retval = call_on_cpu(cpu, acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_probe_cpu, cx,
> >>>> + false);
> >>>> if (retval == 0) {
> >>>> /* Use the hint in CST */
> >>>> percpu_entry->states[cx->index].eax = cx->address;
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c
> >>>> index 532a1ae3595a..a0bd56ece3ff 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_throttling.c
> >>>> @@ -897,13 +897,6 @@ static long __acpi_processor_get_throttling(void *data)
> >>>> return pr->throttling.acpi_processor_get_throttling(pr);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> -static int call_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg, bool direct)
> >>>> -{
> >>>> - if (direct || (is_percpu_thread() && cpu == smp_processor_id()))
> >>>> - return fn(arg);
> >>>> - return work_on_cpu(cpu, fn, arg);
> >>>> -}
> >>>> -
> >>>> static int acpi_processor_get_throttling(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> >>>> {
> >>>> if (!pr)
> >>>> diff --git a/include/acpi/processor.h b/include/acpi/processor.h
> >>>> index 47805172e73d..770d226b22f2 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/acpi/processor.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/acpi/processor.h
> >>>> @@ -297,6 +297,16 @@ static inline void acpi_processor_ffh_cstate_enter(struct acpi_processor_cx
> >>>> }
> >>>> #endif
> >>>>
> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS
> >>>
> >>> Why does this depend on CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS?
> >>
> >> call_on_cpu() was only used in processor_throttling.c which has,
> >>
> >> processor-$(CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS) += processor_throttling.o
> >>
> >> after this patch, it will also be used in cstate.c which has,
> >>
> >> ifneq ($(CONFIG_ACPI_PROCESSOR),)
> >> obj-y += cstate.o
> >> endif
> >>
> >> i.e.,
> >>
> >> config ACPI_PROCESSOR
> >> tristate "Processor"
> >> depends on X86 || IA64 || ARM64
> >> select ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE
> >> select ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS if X86 || IA64
> >>
> >> Therefore, call_on_cpu() is only used when CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS=y.
> >
> > While technically kind of correct, this is also rather far from straightforward, because
> > cstate.o and ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS are different things logically.
> >
> >> The #ifdef is rather a safe net that in the future, if we decided to make call_on_cpu()
> >> a non-inline function, it will prevent triggering an compilation warning for unused
> >> function when CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS=n.
> >
> > But as long as it is static inline, the #ifdef isn't necessary, is it?
>
> Yes, the compiler yet to get an ability to warn about unused inline functions. I am not
> going to insist for this tiny detail here. If nobody likes this #ifdef, I’ll happily remove it in v3.
The point is that cstate.o should rather depend on ACPI_PROCESSOR_IDLE, but
that change would be orthogonal to your patch.
Thanks!
