On 03/24, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > Kenji Kaneshige reported the below lockdep problem when testing
> > my patch on one of his machines.
> >
> > > I still have the following kernel error messages in testing with your
> > > latest set of patches (Jesse's linux-next). The test case is removing
> > > e1000e device or its parent bridge by "echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/
> > > .../remove".
> > >
> > > [ 537.379995] =============================================
> > > [ 537.380124] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> > > [ 537.380128] 2.6.29-rc8-kk #1
> > > [ 537.380128] ---------------------------------------------
> > > [ 537.380128] events/4/56 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [ 537.380128] (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257fc0>] flush_workqueue+0x0/0xa0
> > > [ 537.380128]
> > > [ 537.380128] but task is already holding lock:
> > > [ 537.380128] (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257648>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
> > > [ 537.380128]
> > > [ 537.380128] other info that might help us debug this:
> > > [ 537.380128] 3 locks held by events/4/56:
> > > [ 537.380128] #0: (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257648>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
> > > [ 537.380128] #1: (&ss->work){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257648>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
> > > [ 537.380128] #2: (pci_remove_rescan_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803c10d1>] remove_callback+0x21/0x40
> > > [ 537.380128]
> > > [ 537.380128] stack backtrace:
> > > [ 537.380128] Pid: 56, comm: events/4 Not tainted 2.6.29-rc8-kk #1
> > > [ 537.380128] Call Trace:
> > > [ 537.380128] [<ffffffff8026dfcd>] validate_chain+0xb7d/0x1260
> > > [ 537.380128] [<ffffffff8026eade>] __lock_acquire+0x42e/0xa40
> > > [ 537.380128] [<ffffffff8026f148>] lock_acquire+0x58/0x80
> > > [ 537.380128] [<ffffffff80257fc0>] ? flush_workqueue+0x0/0xa0
> > > [ 537.380128] [<ffffffff8025800d>] flush_workqueue+0x4d/0xa0
> > > [ 537.380128] [<ffffffff80257fc0>] ? flush_workqueue+0x0/0xa0
> > > [ 537.383380] [<ffffffff80258070>] flush_scheduled_work+0x10/0x20
> > > [ 537.383380] [<ffffffffa0144065>] e1000_remove+0x55/0xfe [e1000e]
> > > [ 537.383380] [<ffffffff8033ee30>] ? sysfs_schedule_callback_work+0x0/0x50
> > > [ 537.383380] [<ffffffff803bfeb2>] pci_device_remove+0x32/0x70
> > > [ 537.383380] [<ffffffff80441da9>] __device_release_driver+0x59/0x90
> > > [ 537.383380] [<ffffffff80441edb>] device_release_driver+0x2b/0x40
> > > [ 537.383380] [<ffffffff804419d6>] bus_remove_device+0xa6/0x120
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff8043e46b>] device_del+0x12b/0x190
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff8043e4f6>] device_unregister+0x26/0x70
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff803ba969>] pci_stop_dev+0x49/0x60
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff803baab0>] pci_remove_bus_device+0x40/0xc0
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff803c10d9>] remove_callback+0x29/0x40
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff8033ee4f>] sysfs_schedule_callback_work+0x1f/0x50
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff8025769a>] run_workqueue+0x15a/0x230
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff80257648>] ? run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff8025846f>] worker_thread+0x9f/0x100
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff8025bce0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff802583d0>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x100
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff8025b89d>] kthread+0x4d/0x80
> > > [ 537.384382] [<ffffffff8020d4ba>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
> > > [ 537.386380] [<ffffffff8020cebc>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
> > > [ 537.386380] [<ffffffff8025b850>] ? kthread+0x0/0x80
> > > [ 537.386380] [<ffffffff8020d4b0>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
> > >
> > > I think the cause of this error message is flush_workqueue()
> > > from the work of keventd. When removing device using
> > > "/sys/bus/pci/devices/.../ remove", pci_remove_bus_device() is
> > > executed by the keventd's work through
> > > device_schedule_callback(), and it invokes e1000e's remove
> > > callback. And then, e1000e's remove callback invokes
> > > flush_workqueue(). Actually, the kernel error messages are not
> > > displayed when I changed e1000e driver to not call
> > > flush_workqueue(). In my understanding, flush_workqueue() from
> > > the work must be avoided because it can cause a deadlock.
> > > Please note that this is not a problem of e1000e driver.
> > > Drivers can use flush_workqueue(), of course.
> >
> > I agree with this analysis; the reason we're seeing this lockdep
> > warning is because the sysfs attributed scheduled a removal for
> > itself using device_schedule_callback(). This is necessary
> > because sysfs attributes can't remove themselves due to other
> > locking issues.
> >
> > My question is -- is it a bug to call flush_workqueue during
> > run_workqueue?
>
> Yes, it generally is.
>
> > Conceptually, I don't think it should be a bug; it should be a
> > nop, since run_workqueue _is_ flushing the work queue.
As it was already said, we can deadlock.
Can't e1000_remove() avoid flush_scheduled_work() ? (and it should
be always avoided when possible).
Of course, I don't understand this code. But afaics e1000_remove()
can just cancel its own works (in struct e1000_adapter), no?
cancel_work_sync(work) from run_workqueue() should be OK even if
this work is queued on the same wq. If it is queued on the same CPU
cancel_work_sync() won't block because we are ->current_work.
Btw. Again, I don't understand the code, but this looks suspicious:
e1000_remove:
set_bit(__E1000_DOWN, &adapter->state);
del_timer_sync(&adapter->watchdog_timer);
flush_scheduled_work();
What if e1000_watchdog_task() is running, has already checked
!test_bit(__E1000_DOWN, &adapter->state), but didn't call
mod_timer(&adapter->phy_info_timer) yet?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
