On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 10:40 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > Could you please send me your config?
> > Sure, attached. I haven't yet tried to reproduce on .29 though, which
> > this config is for (but I haven't changed it since, only taken it
> > forward).
I've now gotten it again on 2.6.29-wl-20327-g8f2487d-dirty.
I've analysed a bit more.
Let's start from the bottom:
-> #0 (&dev->mutex){--..}:
[<ffffffff80276e87>] check_prev_add+0x57/0x770
[<ffffffff80277b96>] validate_chain+0x5f6/0x6b0
[<ffffffff8027808f>] __lock_acquire+0x43f/0xa10
[<ffffffff802786f1>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0
[<ffffffff805cb56c>] mutex_lock_nested+0xfc/0x390
[<ffffffff804d19e1>] input_disconnect_device+0x31/0xf0
[<ffffffff804d1aba>] input_unregister_device+0x1a/0x110
[<ffffffffa00df329>] bcm5974_disconnect+0x29/0x90 [bcm5974]
[<ffffffffa001c9ed>] usb_unbind_interface+0x6d/0x180 [usbcore]
[<ffffffff80498661>] __device_release_driver+0x81/0xc0
[<ffffffff804987c0>] device_release_driver+0x30/0x50
[<ffffffffa001ce48>] usb_driver_release_interface+0xc8/0xf0 [usbcore]
[<ffffffffa001cf99>] usb_forced_unbind_intf+0x39/0x90 [usbcore]
[<ffffffffa00121a5>] usb_reset_device+0xd5/0x220 [usbcore]
[<ffffffffa00957fa>] hid_reset+0x18a/0x280 [usbhid]
[<ffffffff8025d28d>] run_workqueue+0x10d/0x250
Here we have hid_reset being called off schedule_work. It eventually
calls into bcm5974 which will, from its usb_driver disconnect call, call
input_unregister_device(), which acquires &dev->mutex.
-> #1 (polldev_mutex){--..}:
[<ffffffff802771e7>] check_prev_add+0x3b7/0x770
[<ffffffff80277b96>] validate_chain+0x5f6/0x6b0
[<ffffffff8027808f>] __lock_acquire+0x43f/0xa10
[<ffffffff802786f1>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0
[<ffffffff805cb12c>] mutex_lock_interruptible_nested+0xec/0x430
[<ffffffffa0058151>] input_open_polled_device+0x21/0xd0 [input_polldev]
[<ffffffff804d1528>] input_open_device+0x98/0xc0
[<ffffffffa009f468>] evdev_open+0x1c8/0x1f0 [evdev]
[<ffffffff804d099f>] input_open_file+0x10f/0x200
[<ffffffff802e6e47>] chrdev_open+0x147/0x220
[<ffffffff802e18eb>] __dentry_open+0x11b/0x350
[<ffffffff802e1c37>] nameidata_to_filp+0x57/0x70
[<ffffffff802f0e6e>] do_filp_open+0x1fe/0x970
[<ffffffff802e16d0>] do_sys_open+0x80/0x110
[<ffffffff802e17a0>] sys_open+0x20/0x30
This is another code path -- evdev triggered here. Any input polldev
will acquire polldev_mutex within its struct input_dev->open() callback,
and thus create a dependency of &dev->mutex on polldev_mutex because
input_open_device() is called with &dev->mutex held.
-> #2 (cpu_add_remove_lock){--..}:
[<ffffffff802771e7>] check_prev_add+0x3b7/0x770
[<ffffffff80277b96>] validate_chain+0x5f6/0x6b0
[<ffffffff8027808f>] __lock_acquire+0x43f/0xa10
[<ffffffff802786f1>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0
[<ffffffff805cb56c>] mutex_lock_nested+0xfc/0x390
[<ffffffff8024a447>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x17/0x20
[<ffffffff8025d7c8>] destroy_workqueue+0x38/0xb0
[<ffffffffa0058115>] input_close_polled_device+0x45/0x60 [input_polldev]
[<ffffffff804d145c>] input_close_device+0x5c/0x90
[<ffffffffa009f1e9>] evdev_release+0xa9/0xd0 [evdev]
[<ffffffff802e4e25>] __fput+0xd5/0x1e0
[<ffffffff802e4f55>] fput+0x25/0x30
[<ffffffff802e14f8>] filp_close+0x58/0x90
[<ffffffff802e15ee>] sys_close+0xbe/0x120
[<ffffffff8020bf0b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
This is cute.
So input-polldev uses its own workqueue, and it's singlethread. But
destroy_workqueue must stop CPU hotplug anyway, calls
cpu_map_update_begin() which locks cpu_add_remove_lock.
-> #3 (events){--..}:
[<ffffffff802771e7>] check_prev_add+0x3b7/0x770
[<ffffffff80277b96>] validate_chain+0x5f6/0x6b0
[<ffffffff8027808f>] __lock_acquire+0x43f/0xa10
[<ffffffff802786f1>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0
[<ffffffff8025d722>] cleanup_workqueue_thread+0x42/0x90
[<ffffffff805bca8d>] workqueue_cpu_callback+0x9d/0x132
[<ffffffff805d1205>] notifier_call_chain+0x65/0xa0
[<ffffffff80267626>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x20
[<ffffffff805ba91b>] _cpu_down+0x1db/0x350
[<ffffffff8024a5b5>] disable_nonboot_cpus+0xe5/0x170
[<ffffffff80287ef5>] hibernation_snapshot+0x135/0x170
[<ffffffff8028b8a5>] snapshot_ioctl+0x425/0x620
[<ffffffff802f27a6>] vfs_ioctl+0x36/0xb0
[<ffffffff802f2b89>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x89/0x350
[<ffffffff802f2e9f>] sys_ioctl+0x4f/0x80
[<ffffffff8020bf0b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
Here we have hibernation, which needs to call disable_nonboot_cpus. This
takes down all CPUs, and causes the workqueue code, now running off the
workqueue_cpu_callback, to call cleanup_workqueue_thread(), which
"acquires" the workqueue. I suspect this will also happen if you go into
sysfs and disable a CPU manually, which may help you reproduce this.
disable_nonboot_cpus calls cpu_map_update_begin() to avoid other things
interfering, and thus creates the dependency of the workqueue on that.
-> #4 (&usbhid->reset_work){--..}:
[<ffffffff802771e7>] check_prev_add+0x3b7/0x770
[<ffffffff80277b96>] validate_chain+0x5f6/0x6b0
[<ffffffff8027808f>] __lock_acquire+0x43f/0xa10
[<ffffffff802786f1>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0
[<ffffffff8025d287>] run_workqueue+0x107/0x250
[<ffffffff8025d47f>] worker_thread+0xaf/0x130
[<ffffffff80261dae>] kthread+0x4e/0x90
[<ffffffff8020cfba>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
Now, of course, usbhid->reset_work runs off the schedule_work workqueue,
which was stopped during hibernation, so it depends on that workqueue.
Finally, we're back at the top, with input_disconnect_device() acquiring
&dev->mutex.
Now, how can a deadlock happen?
I think it cannot -- unless you have a polled USB device. The two
"&dev->mutex" instances here are from difference devices, but lockdep
cannot tell them apart, and if you have a polled USB device then the
same can happen.
Assume you had a polled USB driver using input_unregister_polled_device,
and thus input_unregister_device, in its usb_driver disconnect call. In
that case you could potentially trigger the deadlock when you manage to
get that usb device reset very very close before calling
disable_nonboot_cpus, so close that the usb reset_work is still
scheduled or something like that...
I don't really see a good way to solve it -- but I hope the analysis
helps some -- also adding lots of people to CC.
johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
