Hi Krzysztof,
On 18 January 2016 at 09:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18.01.2016 13:23, Anand Moon wrote:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 18 January 2016 at 05:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>> <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 18.01.2016 06:01, Anand Moon wrote:
>>>> The introduction of the mutex in commit d1cd21427747 ("pwm: Set enable
>>>> state properly on failed call to enable") effectively makes all PWM drivers
>>>> potentially sleeping. That in turn makes the .can_sleep field obsolete
>>>> since all drivers can now sleep.
>>>>
>>>> Changes fix the below bug by using spinlocks instead of mutex
>>>>
>>>> [ 22.300239] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>>>> [ 22.307212] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 2257, name: sh
>>>> [ 22.313454] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>>>> [ 23.655232] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>>>> [ 23.662174] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 2404, name: upowerd
>>>> [ 23.668932] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>>>> [ 25.010207] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>>>> [ 25.017125] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 2262, name: indicator-keybo
>>>> [ 25.024491] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>>>> [ 26.355237] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>>>> [ 26.362141] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 0, name: swapper/0
>>>> [ 26.368728] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>>>> [ 27.680220] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>>>> [ 27.687119] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 0, name: swapper/0
>>>> [ 27.693698] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
>>>> [ 29.005199] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
>>>> [ 29.012124] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 0, name: swapper/0
>>>>
>>>> [thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx: Fixed the commit message]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes logs: droped my prevoius approch.
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/pwm/core.c | 10 +++++-----
>>>> include/linux/pwm.h | 4 ++--
>>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c
>>>> index d24ca5f..58e7091 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
>>>> @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ int pwmchip_add_with_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip,
>>>> pwm->pwm = chip->base + i;
>>>> pwm->hwpwm = i;
>>>> pwm->polarity = polarity;
>>>> - mutex_init(&pwm->lock);
>>>> + spin_lock_init(&pwm->lock);
>>>>
>>>> radix_tree_insert(&pwm_tree, pwm->pwm, pwm);
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -474,7 +474,7 @@ int pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_device *pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
>>>> if (!pwm->chip->ops->set_polarity)
>>>> return -ENOSYS;
>>>>
>>>> - mutex_lock(&pwm->lock);
>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&pwm->lock);
>>>
>>> Anand,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the effort put into digging into this issue. Unfortunately
>>> this approach is bad. You cannot fix one issue without looking at the
>>> big picture of the given subsystem. This patch does exactly this - fixes
>>> your warning but probably introduces bugs all over the place.
>>>
>>> Although the set_polarity callback (called under the lock) is not
>>> described as sleeping-allowed but some implementations do it in a
>>> sleeping way. This is really easy to find, e.g.:
>>> pwm_omap_dmtimer_set_polarity.
>>>
>>> This means: no.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>
>> Already within function pwm_samsung_set_invert is protected by
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&samsung_pwm_lock, flags);
>>
>> So no need to introduce another lock to control pwm_samsung_set_polarity.
>>
>> Best Regards.
>> -Anand Moon
>
> I don't have any clue what is your point here. I don't get what
> pwm_samsung_set_polarity has to do with main pwm core...
>
> Sorry, you need to be more specific.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
>
Below is the mapping of calls from pwm driver.
I have tried to map the functionality and I am trying to understand
the flow of the driver.
Also looking in document
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/pwm.txt
pwm-samsung driver controls the LEDS, fans...etc
Form the dts modes pwmleds
pwmleds {
compatible = "pwm-leds";
blueled {
label = "blue:heartbeat";
pwms = <&pwm 2 2000000 0>;
pwm-names = "pwm2";
max_brightness = <255>;
linux,default-trigger = "heartbeat";
};
};
Following is the map out from the device tree.
pwms = <&pwm 2 2000000 0>;
&pwm -> pwm: pwm@12dd0000 --->samsung,exynos4210-pwm
2 -> period
2000000 -> duty_cycle
0 -> polarity
And here is the mapping of the call of function
Note: This function call are as per my understanding of the flow in
the driver. I might be wrong.
pwm_samsung_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device
*pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
\
pwm_samsung_set_invert(our_chip, pwm->hwpwm, invert);
\
pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_device *pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
\
pwm->chip->ops->set_polarity(pwm->chip, pwm, polarity);
\
pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm) or pwm_disable(struct pwm_device *pwm)
pwm_enable or pwm_disable will be triggered on change in pwm->flags by
the pwm core.
before pwm_set_polarity is called form the Samsung driver it hold with
following locks
Here is the locking
pwm_samsung_set_polarity(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device
*pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
\
pwm_samsung_set_invert(struct samsung_pwm_chip *chip, unsigned int
channel, bool invert)
\
spin_lock_irqsave(&samsung_pwm_lock, flags);
\
pwm_set_polarity(struct pwm_device *pwm, enum pwm_polarity polarity)
\
mutex_lock(&pwm->lock)
pwm_enable(struct pwm_device *pwm) or pwm_disable(struct
pwm_device *pwm)
\
mutex_lock(&pwm->lock);
Problem I see that we are holding the lock in interrupt context.
I don't know how the this triggers this bug.
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/mutex.c:97
Please let me know if I am wrong.
-Anand Moon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
