On 2020-09-05 06:47:29 [+0200], Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [ 22.024936] ======================================================
> [ 22.024936] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 22.024937] 5.9.0.gc70672d-rt3-rt #8 Tainted: G E
> [ 22.024938] ------------------------------------------------------
> [ 22.024939] ksoftirqd/0/10 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 22.024941] ffff983475521278 (&sch->q.lock){+...}-{0:0}, at: sch_direct_xmit+0x81/0x2f0
> [ 22.024947]
> but task is already holding lock:
> [ 22.024947] ffff9834755212b8 (&s->seqcount#9){+...}-{0:0}, at: br_dev_queue_push_xmit+0x7d/0x180 [bridge]
> [ 22.024959]
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> [ 22.024960]
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 22.024961]
> -> #1 (&s->seqcount#9){+...}-{0:0}:
> [ 22.024963] lock_acquire+0x92/0x3f0
> [ 22.024967] __dev_queue_xmit+0xce7/0xe30
…
> -> #0 (&sch->q.lock){+...}-{0:0}:
> [ 22.025015] validate_chain+0xa81/0x1230
> [ 22.025016] __lock_acquire+0x880/0xbf0
> [ 22.025017] lock_acquire+0x92/0x3f0
> [ 22.025018] rt_spin_lock+0x78/0xd0
> [ 22.025020] sch_direct_xmit+0x81/0x2f0
…
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> [ 22.025061] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> [ 22.025061] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 22.025061] ---- ----
> [ 22.025062] lock(&s->seqcount#9);
> [ 22.025064] lock(&sch->q.lock);
> [ 22.025065] lock(&s->seqcount#9);
> [ 22.025065] lock(&sch->q.lock);
> [ 22.025066]
> *** DEADLOCK ***
This has nothing to do with the bridge but with the fact that you use a
non standard queue class (something else than pfifo_fast).
The flow in CPU1 is the default flow but the second lock is a trylock.
CPU0 is from sch_direct_xmit() where it drops the the
root_lock/qdisc.lock and re-acquires it. This shouldn't fail because the
CPU1 a try-lock of the seqlock first and then the seqcount is "not
acquired". So if we annotate the seqcount as a try_acquire then it
should not do this anymore.
Sebastian
