On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:45, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Jiada,
>
> CC Marek, Jon, Mike, Stephen, linux-clk, linux-renesas-soc
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:51 AM Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Lockdep warns that prepare_lock and genpd->mlock can cause a deadlock
> > the deadlock scenario is like following:
> > First thread is probing cs2000
> > cs2000_probe()
> > clk_register()
> > __clk_core_init()
> > clk_prepare_lock() ----> acquires prepare_lock
> > cs2000_recalc_rate()
> > i2c_smbus_read_byte_data()
> > rcar_i2c_master_xfer()
> > dma_request_chan()
> > rcar_dmac_of_xlate()
> > rcar_dmac_alloc_chan_resources()
> > pm_runtime_get_sync()
> > __pm_runtime_resume()
> > rpm_resume()
> > rpm_callback()
> > genpd_runtime_resume() ----> acquires genpd->mlock
> >
> > Second thread is attaching any device to the same PM domain
> > genpd_add_device()
> > genpd_lock() ----> acquires genpd->mlock
> > cpg_mssr_attach_dev()
> > of_clk_get_from_provider()
> > __of_clk_get_from_provider()
> > __clk_create_clk()
> > clk_prepare_lock() ----> acquires prepare_lock
> >
> > Since currently no PM provider access genpd's critical section
> > in .attach_dev, and .detach_dev callbacks, so there is no need to protect
> > these two callbacks with genpd->mlock.
> > This patch avoids a potential deadlock by moving out .attach_dev and .detach_dev
> > from genpd->mlock, so that genpd->mlock won't be held when prepare_lock is acquired
> > in .attach_dev and .detach_dev
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks a lot for your perseverance!
> I had tried putting each PM Domain in its own lockdep class, but that
> didn't help.
>
> Your patch fixes the lockdep warnings on my Salvator-X(S) boards.
>
> Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Your solution makes sense, as the .{at,de}tach_dev() callbacks are
> owned by the individual PM Domain drivers, and not by the genpd core.
>
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> One thing I'm still wondering about: genpd_add_device() is always called
> with gpd_list_lock held.
> However, the same cannot be said about genpd_remove_device():
> - pm_genpd_remove_device() does not take gpd_list_lock, unlike
> pm_genpd_add_device(),
> - genpd_dev_pm_detach() does not take gpd_list_lock, while
> __genpd_dev_pm_attach() does take the lock for adding,
> but not for removing (in the error patch)?
That's correctly observed and it's something that needs to be fixed in
the long run. Although I am not sure that we should use the
gpd_list_lock...
There are race conditions while removing a device at the same time as
the genpd is removed. As a matter of fact, even the debugfs isn't
correctly dropped, when a genpd is removed. However, because almost
none it ever removing a genpd, this isn't a problem in practice.
Anyway, I have a TODO list for genpd (starting to be quite longe) and
this one is already on it, whatever that means. :-)
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
