Le Friday 01 Feb 2019 à 16:28:54 (+0100), Vincent Guittot a écrit :
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 16:02, Biju Das <biju.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > I have rebased my kernel to "next-20190201". Still I am seeing dead lock.
> >
> > Am I missing any patch?
>
> No you don't miss anything.
> I think that it's the opposite.
>
> Modification in time accounting in PM runtime has been queued but it
> has not moved (yet) to ktime_get_mono_fast_ns()
>
> Can you try to revert c669560be6c8 ("PM-runtime: Replace jiffies-based
> accounting with ktime-based accounting") ?
Or instead you can apply :
---
drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
index 4eaf166..1c40e2a 100644
--- a/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
+++ b/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static int rpm_suspend(struct device *dev, int rpmflags);
*/
void update_pm_runtime_accounting(struct device *dev)
{
- u64 now = ktime_to_ns(ktime_get());
+ u64 now = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns();
u64 delta;
delta = now - dev->power.accounting_timestamp;
@@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ void pm_runtime_enable(struct device *dev)
/* About to enable runtime pm, set accounting_timestamp to now */
if (!dev->power.disable_depth)
- dev->power.accounting_timestamp = ktime_to_ns(ktime_get());
+ dev->power.accounting_timestamp = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns();
} else {
dev_warn(dev, "Unbalanced %s!\n", __func__);
}
--
2.7.4
>
>
> >
> > root@ek874:/# echo e61e0000.timer > /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource
> > [ 193.869423]
> > [ 193.870963] ============================================
> > [ 193.876292] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> > [ 193.881625] 5.0.0-rc4-next-20190201-00007-g731346f #3 Not tainted
> > [ 193.887737] --------------------------------------------
> > [ 193.893066] migration/0/11 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 193.898136] (____ptrval____) (tk_core.seq){----}, at: update_pm_runtime_accounting+0x14/0x68
> > [ 193.906632]
> > [ 193.906632] but task is already holding lock:
> > [ 193.912483] (____ptrval____) (tk_core.seq){----}, at: multi_cpu_stop+0x8c/0x140
> > [ 193.919828]
> > [ 193.919828] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 193.926377] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [ 193.926377]
> > [ 193.932314] CPU0
> > [ 193.934765] ----
> > [ 193.937216] lock(tk_core.seq);
> > [ 193.940453] lock(tk_core.seq);
> > [ 193.943691]
> > [ 193.943691] *** DEADLOCK ***
> > [ 193.943691]
> > [ 193.949634] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> > [ 193.949634]
> > [ 193.956446] 3 locks held by migration/0/11:
> > [ 193.960642] #0: (____ptrval____) (timekeeper_lock){-.-.}, at: change_clocksource+0x2c/0x118
> > [ 193.969125] #1: (____ptrval____) (tk_core.seq){----}, at: multi_cpu_stop+0x8c/0x140
> > [ 193.976903] #2: (____ptrval____) (&(&dev->power.lock)->rlock){....}, at: __pm_runtime_resume+0x40/0x98
> > [ 193.986339]
> > [ 193.986339] stack backtrace:
> > [ 193.990715] CPU: 0 PID: 11 Comm: migration/0 Not tainted 5.0.0-rc4-next-20190201-00007-g731346f #3
> > [ 193.999707] Hardware name: Silicon Linux RZ/G2E evaluation kit EK874 (CAT874 + CAT875) (DT)
> > [ 194.008089] Call trace:
> > [ 194.010553] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x178
> > [ 194.014227] show_stack+0x14/0x20
> > [ 194.017562] dump_stack+0xb0/0xec
> > [ 194.020895] __lock_acquire+0xfb4/0x1c08
> > [ 194.024832] lock_acquire+0xd0/0x268
> > [ 194.028420] ktime_get+0x5c/0x108
> > [ 194.031747] update_pm_runtime_accounting+0x14/0x68
> > [ 194.036643] rpm_resume+0x4ec/0x698
> > [ 194.040144] __pm_runtime_resume+0x50/0x98
> > [ 194.044264] sh_tmu_enable.part.1+0x24/0x50
> > [ 194.048462] sh_tmu_clocksource_enable+0x48/0x70
> > [ 194.053097] change_clocksource+0x84/0x118
> > [ 194.057208] multi_cpu_stop+0x8c/0x140
> > [ 194.060970] cpu_stopper_thread+0xac/0x120
> > [ 194.065087] smpboot_thread_fn+0x1ac/0x2c8
> > [ 194.069198] kthread+0x128/0x130
> > [ 194.072439] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Biju
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: 30 January 2019 21:53
> > > To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-
> > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux ARM <linux-arm-
> > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-
> > > omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ulf
> > > Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Biju Das <biju.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Linux-Renesas <linux-
> > > renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PM-runtime: fix deadlock with ktime
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:26 PM Vincent Guittot
> > > <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A deadlock has been seen when swicthing clocksources which use PM
> > > runtime.
> > > > The call path is:
> > > > change_clocksource
> > > > ...
> > > > write_seqcount_begin
> > > > ...
> > > > timekeeping_update
> > > > ...
> > > > sh_cmt_clocksource_enable
> > > > ...
> > > > rpm_resume
> > > > pm_runtime_mark_last_busy
> > > > ktime_get
> > > > do
> > > > read_seqcount_begin
> > > > while read_seqcount_retry
> > > > ....
> > > > write_seqcount_end
> > > >
> > > > Although we should be safe because we haven't yet changed the
> > > > clocksource at that time, we can't because of seqcount protection.
> > > >
> > > > Use ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() instead which is lock safe for such case
> > > >
> > > > With ktime_get_mono_fast_ns, the timestamp is not guaranteed to be
> > > > monotonic across an update and as a result can goes backward.
> > > > According to
> > > > update_fast_timekeeper() description: "In the worst case, this can
> > > > result is a slightly wrong timestamp (a few nanoseconds)". For PM
> > > > runtime autosuspend, this means only that the suspend decision can be
> > > > slightly sub optimal.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 8234f6734c5d ("PM-runtime: Switch autosuspend over to using
> > > > hrtimers")
> > > > Reported-by: Biju Das <biju.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rafael,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I sent the version with the typo mistake that generated the
> > > > compilation error reported by kbuild-test-robot
> > > >
> > > > This version doesn't have the typo.
> > >
> > > OK, I've applied this one, thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> > Renesas Electronics Europe Ltd, Dukes Meadow, Millboard Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, SL8 5FH, UK. Registered in England & Wales under Registered No. 04586709.
