The following lockdep warning is reported to trigger since 3.9-rc1:
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
3.9.0-rc1 #96 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
kworker/0:1/734 is trying to acquire lock:
((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81066cb0>] flush_work+0x0/0x250
but task is already holding lock:
((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81064352>]
process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock((&wfc.work));
lock((&wfc.work));
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
3 locks held by kworker/0:1/734:
#0: (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81064352>]
process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
#1: ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81064352>]
process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
#2: (&__lockdep_no_validate__){......}, at: [<ffffffff812db225>]
device_attach+0x25/0xb0
stack backtrace:
Pid: 734, comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 3.9.0-rc1 #96
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff810948ec>] validate_chain+0xdcc/0x11f0
[<ffffffff81095150>] __lock_acquire+0x440/0xc70
[<ffffffff81095150>] ? __lock_acquire+0x440/0xc70
[<ffffffff810959da>] lock_acquire+0x5a/0x70
[<ffffffff81066cb0>] ? wq_worker_waking_up+0x60/0x60
[<ffffffff81066cf5>] flush_work+0x45/0x250
[<ffffffff81066cb0>] ? wq_worker_waking_up+0x60/0x60
[<ffffffff810922be>] ? mark_held_locks+0x9e/0x130
[<ffffffff81066a96>] ? queue_work_on+0x46/0x90
[<ffffffff810925dd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfd/0x190
[<ffffffff8109267d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
[<ffffffff81066f74>] work_on_cpu+0x74/0x90
[<ffffffff81063820>] ? keventd_up+0x20/0x20
[<ffffffff8121fd30>] ? pci_pm_prepare+0x60/0x60
[<ffffffff811f9293>] ? cpumask_next_and+0x23/0x40
[<ffffffff81220a1a>] pci_device_probe+0xba/0x110
[<ffffffff812dadca>] ? driver_sysfs_add+0x7a/0xb0
[<ffffffff812daf1f>] driver_probe_device+0x8f/0x230
[<ffffffff812db170>] ? __driver_attach+0xb0/0xb0
[<ffffffff812db1bb>] __device_attach+0x4b/0x60
[<ffffffff812d9314>] bus_for_each_drv+0x64/0x90
[<ffffffff812db298>] device_attach+0x98/0xb0
[<ffffffff81218474>] pci_bus_add_device+0x24/0x50
[<ffffffff81232e80>] virtfn_add+0x240/0x3e0
[<ffffffff8146ce3d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3d/0x80
[<ffffffff812333be>] pci_enable_sriov+0x23e/0x500
[<ffffffffa011fa1a>] __mlx4_init_one+0x5da/0xce0 [mlx4_core]
[<ffffffffa012016d>] mlx4_init_one+0x2d/0x60 [mlx4_core]
[<ffffffff8121fd79>] local_pci_probe+0x49/0x80
[<ffffffff81063833>] work_for_cpu_fn+0x13/0x20
[<ffffffff810643b8>] process_one_work+0x1c8/0x4c0
[<ffffffff81064352>] ? process_one_work+0x162/0x4c0
[<ffffffff81064cfb>] worker_thread+0x30b/0x430
[<ffffffff810649f0>] ? manage_workers+0x340/0x340
[<ffffffff8106cea6>] kthread+0xd6/0xe0
[<ffffffff8106cdd0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
[<ffffffff8146daac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[<ffffffff8106cdd0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
Reference: http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=136249690901892&w=2
The issue is that a driver, in it's probe function, calls
pci_sriov_enable so a PF device probe causes VF probe (AKA nested
probe). Each probe in pci_device_probe is (normally) run through
work_on_cpu (this is to get the right numa node for memory allocated by
the driver). In turn work_on_cpu does this internally:
schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
flush_work(&wfc.work);
So if you are running probe on CPU1, and cause another
probe on the same CPU, this will try to flush
workqueue from inside same workqueue which of course
deadlocks.
Nested probing might be tricky to get right generally.
But for pci_sriov_enable, the situation is actually very simple: all VFs
naturally have same affinity as the PF, and cpumask_any_and is actually
same as cpumask_first_and, so it always gives us the same CPU.
So let's just detect that, and run the probing for VFs locally without a
workqueue.
This is hardly elegant, but looks to me like an appropriate quick fix
for 3.9.
Tested-by: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Reposting due to missed Cc's. Sorry about the noise.
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
index 1fa1e48..6eeb5ec 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
@@ -286,8 +286,8 @@ static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct pci_dev *dev,
int cpu;
get_online_cpus();
cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpumask_of_node(node), cpu_online_mask);
- if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
+ if (cpu != raw_smp_processor_id() && cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
error = work_on_cpu(cpu, local_pci_probe, &ddi);
else
error = local_pci_probe(&ddi);
--
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
