| Message ID | 20191127141544.4277-3-leo.yan@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | tty: serial: msm_serial: Fix lockup issues | expand |
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:16 AM Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote: > > The uart driver might run into deadlock caused by recursive output; the > basic flow is after uart driver has acquired the port spinlock, then it > invokes some functions, e.g. dma engine operations and allocate dma > descriptor with kzalloc(), if the system has very less free memory, the > kernel will give out warning by printing logs, thus recursive output > will happen and at the second time the attempting to acquire lock will > cause deadlock. The detailed flow is shown as below: > > msm_uart_irq() > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags) => First time to acquire lock > msm_handle_tx(port) > msm_handle_tx_dma() > dmaengine_prep_slave_single() > bam_prep_slave_sg() > kzalloc() > __kmalloc() > ___slab_alloc() > alloc_pages_current() > __alloc_pages_nodemask() > warn_alloc() > printk() > msm_console_write() > __msm_console_write() > spin_lock(&port->lock) => Cause deadlock > > This patch fixes the deadlock issue for recursive output; it adds a > variable 'curr_user' to indicate the uart port is used by which CPU, if > the CPU has acquired spinlock and wants to execute recursive output, > it will directly bail out. Here we don't choose to avoid locking and > print out log, the reason is in this case we don't want to reset the > uart port with function msm_reset_dm_count(); otherwise it can introduce > confliction with other flows and results in uart port malfunction and > later cannot output anymore. Is this not fixable? Sure, fixing the deadlock is an improvement, but dropping logs (particularly a memory warning like in your example) seems undesirable. > > Fixes: 99693945013a ("tty: serial: msm: Add RX DMA support") > Fixes: 3a878c430fd6 ("tty: serial: msm: Add TX DMA support") > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > index 889538182e83..06076cd2948f 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > @@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ struct msm_port { > bool break_detected; > struct msm_dma tx_dma; > struct msm_dma rx_dma; > + struct cpumask curr_user; > }; > > #define UART_TO_MSM(uart_port) container_of(uart_port, struct msm_port, uart) > @@ -436,6 +437,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > u32 val; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > /* Already stopped */ > if (!dma->count) > @@ -470,6 +472,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > > msm_handle_tx(port); > done: > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > } > > @@ -544,6 +547,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > u32 val; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > /* Already stopped */ > if (!dma->count) > @@ -590,6 +594,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > > msm_start_rx_dma(msm_port); > done: > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > if (count) > @@ -931,6 +936,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > u32 val; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > misr = msm_read(port, UART_MISR); > msm_write(port, 0, UART_IMR); /* disable interrupt */ > > @@ -962,6 +968,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > msm_handle_delta_cts(port); > > msm_write(port, msm_port->imr, UART_IMR); /* restore interrupt */ > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > return IRQ_HANDLED; > @@ -1572,6 +1579,7 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) > static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) > { > + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); > int i; > int num_newlines = 0; > bool replaced = false; > @@ -1593,6 +1601,8 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > locked = 0; > else if (oops_in_progress) > locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); > + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) > + return; > else > spin_lock(&port->lock); > > -- > 2.17.1 >
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 09:40:55AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:16 AM Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > The uart driver might run into deadlock caused by recursive output; the > > basic flow is after uart driver has acquired the port spinlock, then it > > invokes some functions, e.g. dma engine operations and allocate dma > > descriptor with kzalloc(), if the system has very less free memory, the > > kernel will give out warning by printing logs, thus recursive output > > will happen and at the second time the attempting to acquire lock will > > cause deadlock. The detailed flow is shown as below: > > > > msm_uart_irq() > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags) => First time to acquire lock > > msm_handle_tx(port) > > msm_handle_tx_dma() > > dmaengine_prep_slave_single() > > bam_prep_slave_sg() > > kzalloc() > > __kmalloc() > > ___slab_alloc() > > alloc_pages_current() > > __alloc_pages_nodemask() > > warn_alloc() > > printk() > > msm_console_write() > > __msm_console_write() > > spin_lock(&port->lock) => Cause deadlock > > > > This patch fixes the deadlock issue for recursive output; it adds a > > variable 'curr_user' to indicate the uart port is used by which CPU, if > > the CPU has acquired spinlock and wants to execute recursive output, > > it will directly bail out. Here we don't choose to avoid locking and > > print out log, the reason is in this case we don't want to reset the > > uart port with function msm_reset_dm_count(); otherwise it can introduce > > confliction with other flows and results in uart port malfunction and > > later cannot output anymore. > > Is this not fixable? Sure, fixing the deadlock is an improvement, but > dropping logs (particularly a memory warning like in your example) > seems undesirable. Thanks a lot for your reviewing, Jeffrey. Agreed with you for the concern. To be honest, I am not familiar with the msm uart driver, so have no confidence which is the best way for uart port operations. I can think out one possible fixing is shown in below, if detects the lock is not acquired then it will force to reset UART port before exit the function __msm_console_write(). This approach is not tested yet and it looks too arbitrary; I will give a try for it. At the meantime, welcome any insight suggestion with proper register operations. @@ -1572,6 +1579,7 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) { + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); int i; int num_newlines = 0; bool replaced = false; @@ -1593,6 +1601,8 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, locked = 0; else if (oops_in_progress) locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) + return; else spin_lock(&port->lock); @@ -1632,6 +1642,9 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, i += num_chars; } + if (!locked && is_uartdm) + msm_reset(port); + if (locked) spin_unlock(&port->lock); } Thanks, Leo > > > > Fixes: 99693945013a ("tty: serial: msm: Add RX DMA support") > > Fixes: 3a878c430fd6 ("tty: serial: msm: Add TX DMA support") > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > > index 889538182e83..06076cd2948f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > > @@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ struct msm_port { > > bool break_detected; > > struct msm_dma tx_dma; > > struct msm_dma rx_dma; > > + struct cpumask curr_user; > > }; > > > > #define UART_TO_MSM(uart_port) container_of(uart_port, struct msm_port, uart) > > @@ -436,6 +437,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > > u32 val; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > > /* Already stopped */ > > if (!dma->count) > > @@ -470,6 +472,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > > > > msm_handle_tx(port); > > done: > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > } > > > > @@ -544,6 +547,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > > u32 val; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > > /* Already stopped */ > > if (!dma->count) > > @@ -590,6 +594,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > > > > msm_start_rx_dma(msm_port); > > done: > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > > > if (count) > > @@ -931,6 +936,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > > u32 val; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > misr = msm_read(port, UART_MISR); > > msm_write(port, 0, UART_IMR); /* disable interrupt */ > > > > @@ -962,6 +968,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > > msm_handle_delta_cts(port); > > > > msm_write(port, msm_port->imr, UART_IMR); /* restore interrupt */ > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > > > return IRQ_HANDLED; > > @@ -1572,6 +1579,7 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) > > static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > > unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) > > { > > + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); > > int i; > > int num_newlines = 0; > > bool replaced = false; > > @@ -1593,6 +1601,8 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > > locked = 0; > > else if (oops_in_progress) > > locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); > > + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) > > + return; > > else > > spin_lock(&port->lock); > > > > -- > > 2.17.1 > >
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:23 AM Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 09:40:55AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:16 AM Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > The uart driver might run into deadlock caused by recursive output; the > > > basic flow is after uart driver has acquired the port spinlock, then it > > > invokes some functions, e.g. dma engine operations and allocate dma > > > descriptor with kzalloc(), if the system has very less free memory, the > > > kernel will give out warning by printing logs, thus recursive output > > > will happen and at the second time the attempting to acquire lock will > > > cause deadlock. The detailed flow is shown as below: > > > > > > msm_uart_irq() > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags) => First time to acquire lock > > > msm_handle_tx(port) > > > msm_handle_tx_dma() > > > dmaengine_prep_slave_single() > > > bam_prep_slave_sg() > > > kzalloc() > > > __kmalloc() > > > ___slab_alloc() > > > alloc_pages_current() > > > __alloc_pages_nodemask() > > > warn_alloc() > > > printk() > > > msm_console_write() > > > __msm_console_write() > > > spin_lock(&port->lock) => Cause deadlock > > > > > > This patch fixes the deadlock issue for recursive output; it adds a > > > variable 'curr_user' to indicate the uart port is used by which CPU, if > > > the CPU has acquired spinlock and wants to execute recursive output, > > > it will directly bail out. Here we don't choose to avoid locking and > > > print out log, the reason is in this case we don't want to reset the > > > uart port with function msm_reset_dm_count(); otherwise it can introduce > > > confliction with other flows and results in uart port malfunction and > > > later cannot output anymore. > > > > Is this not fixable? Sure, fixing the deadlock is an improvement, but > > dropping logs (particularly a memory warning like in your example) > > seems undesirable. > > Thanks a lot for your reviewing, Jeffrey. > > Agreed with you for the concern. > > To be honest, I am not familiar with the msm uart driver, so have no > confidence which is the best way for uart port operations. I can > think out one possible fixing is shown in below, if detects the lock > is not acquired then it will force to reset UART port before exit the > function __msm_console_write(). > > This approach is not tested yet and it looks too arbitrary; I will > give a try for it. At the meantime, welcome any insight suggestion > with proper register operations. According to the documentation, NCF_TX is only needed for SW transmit mode, where software is directly puttting characters in the fifo. Its not needed for BAM mode. According to your example, recursive console printing will only happen in BAM mode, and not in SW mode. Perhaps if we put the NCF_TX uses to just the SW mode, we avoid the issue and can allow recursive printing? > > @@ -1572,6 +1579,7 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) > static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) > { > + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); > int i; > int num_newlines = 0; > bool replaced = false; > @@ -1593,6 +1601,8 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > locked = 0; > else if (oops_in_progress) > locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); > + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) > + return; > else > spin_lock(&port->lock); > > @@ -1632,6 +1642,9 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > i += num_chars; > } > > + if (!locked && is_uartdm) > + msm_reset(port); > + > if (locked) > spin_unlock(&port->lock); > } > > Thanks, > Leo > > > > > > > Fixes: 99693945013a ("tty: serial: msm: Add RX DMA support") > > > Fixes: 3a878c430fd6 ("tty: serial: msm: Add TX DMA support") > > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c | 10 ++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > > > index 889538182e83..06076cd2948f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > > > @@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ struct msm_port { > > > bool break_detected; > > > struct msm_dma tx_dma; > > > struct msm_dma rx_dma; > > > + struct cpumask curr_user; > > > }; > > > > > > #define UART_TO_MSM(uart_port) container_of(uart_port, struct msm_port, uart) > > > @@ -436,6 +437,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > > > u32 val; > > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > > > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > > > > /* Already stopped */ > > > if (!dma->count) > > > @@ -470,6 +472,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > > > > > > msm_handle_tx(port); > > > done: > > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > > } > > > > > > @@ -544,6 +547,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > > > u32 val; > > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > > > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > > > > /* Already stopped */ > > > if (!dma->count) > > > @@ -590,6 +594,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > > > > > > msm_start_rx_dma(msm_port); > > > done: > > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > > > > > if (count) > > > @@ -931,6 +936,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > > > u32 val; > > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > > > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > misr = msm_read(port, UART_MISR); > > > msm_write(port, 0, UART_IMR); /* disable interrupt */ > > > > > > @@ -962,6 +968,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > > > msm_handle_delta_cts(port); > > > > > > msm_write(port, msm_port->imr, UART_IMR); /* restore interrupt */ > > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > > > > > return IRQ_HANDLED; > > > @@ -1572,6 +1579,7 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) > > > static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > > > unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) > > > { > > > + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); > > > int i; > > > int num_newlines = 0; > > > bool replaced = false; > > > @@ -1593,6 +1601,8 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > > > locked = 0; > > > else if (oops_in_progress) > > > locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); > > > + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) > > > + return; > > > else > > > spin_lock(&port->lock); > > > > > > -- > > > 2.17.1 > > >
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:42:31PM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: [...] > > > > This patch fixes the deadlock issue for recursive output; it adds a > > > > variable 'curr_user' to indicate the uart port is used by which CPU, if > > > > the CPU has acquired spinlock and wants to execute recursive output, > > > > it will directly bail out. Here we don't choose to avoid locking and > > > > print out log, the reason is in this case we don't want to reset the > > > > uart port with function msm_reset_dm_count(); otherwise it can introduce > > > > confliction with other flows and results in uart port malfunction and > > > > later cannot output anymore. > > > > > > Is this not fixable? Sure, fixing the deadlock is an improvement, but > > > dropping logs (particularly a memory warning like in your example) > > > seems undesirable. > > > > Thanks a lot for your reviewing, Jeffrey. > > > > Agreed with you for the concern. > > > > To be honest, I am not familiar with the msm uart driver, so have no > > confidence which is the best way for uart port operations. I can > > think out one possible fixing is shown in below, if detects the lock > > is not acquired then it will force to reset UART port before exit the > > function __msm_console_write(). > > > > This approach is not tested yet and it looks too arbitrary; I will > > give a try for it. At the meantime, welcome any insight suggestion > > with proper register operations. > > According to the documentation, NCF_TX is only needed for SW transmit > mode, where software is directly puttting characters in the fifo. Its > not needed for BAM mode. According to your example, recursive console > printing will only happen in BAM mode, and not in SW mode. Perhaps if > we put the NCF_TX uses to just the SW mode, we avoid the issue and can > allow recursive printing? Thanks for the suggestion! But based on the suggestion, I tried to change code as below, the console even cannot work when boot the kernel: static void msm_reset_dm_count(struct uart_port *port, int count) { + u32 val; + msm_wait_for_xmitr(port); - msm_write(port, count, UARTDM_NCF_TX); - msm_read(port, UARTDM_NCF_TX); + + val = msm_read(port, UARTDM_DMEN); + + /* + * NCF is only enabled for SW transmit mode and is + * skipped for BAM mode. + */ + if (!(val & UARTDM_DMEN_TX_BAM_ENABLE) && + !(val & UARTDM_DMEN_RX_BAM_ENABLE)) { + msm_write(port, count, UARTDM_NCF_TX); + msm_read(port, UARTDM_NCF_TX); + } } Alternatively, when exit from __msm_console_write() and if detect the case for without acquiring spinlock, invoke msm_wait_for_xmitr() to wait for transmit completion looks a good candidate solution. The updated patch is as below. Please let me know if this is doable? diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c index 1db79ee8a886..aa6a494c898d 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c @@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ struct msm_port { bool break_detected; struct msm_dma tx_dma; struct msm_dma rx_dma; + struct cpumask curr_user; }; #define UART_TO_MSM(uart_port) container_of(uart_port, struct msm_port, uart) @@ -440,6 +441,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) u32 val; spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); /* Already stopped */ if (!dma->count) @@ -474,6 +476,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) msm_handle_tx(port); done: + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); } @@ -548,6 +551,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) u32 val; spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); /* Already stopped */ if (!dma->count) @@ -594,6 +598,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) msm_start_rx_dma(msm_port); done: + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); if (count) @@ -932,6 +937,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) u32 val; spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); misr = msm_read(port, UART_MISR); msm_write(port, 0, UART_IMR); /* disable interrupt */ @@ -963,6 +969,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) msm_handle_delta_cts(port); msm_write(port, msm_port->imr, UART_IMR); /* restore interrupt */ + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); return IRQ_HANDLED; @@ -1573,10 +1580,12 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) { + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); int i; int num_newlines = 0; bool replaced = false; void __iomem *tf; + int locked = 1; if (is_uartdm) tf = port->membase + UARTDM_TF; @@ -1589,7 +1598,15 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, num_newlines++; count += num_newlines; - spin_lock(&port->lock); + if (port->sysrq) + locked = 0; + else if (oops_in_progress) + locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) + locked = 0; + else + spin_lock(&port->lock); + if (is_uartdm) msm_reset_dm_count(port, count); @@ -1625,7 +1642,12 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, iowrite32_rep(tf, buf, 1); i += num_chars; } - spin_unlock(&port->lock); + + if (!locked) + msm_wait_for_xmitr(port); + + if (locked) + spin_unlock(&port->lock); }
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:13 AM Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:42:31PM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > This patch fixes the deadlock issue for recursive output; it adds a > > > > > variable 'curr_user' to indicate the uart port is used by which CPU, if > > > > > the CPU has acquired spinlock and wants to execute recursive output, > > > > > it will directly bail out. Here we don't choose to avoid locking and > > > > > print out log, the reason is in this case we don't want to reset the > > > > > uart port with function msm_reset_dm_count(); otherwise it can introduce > > > > > confliction with other flows and results in uart port malfunction and > > > > > later cannot output anymore. > > > > > > > > Is this not fixable? Sure, fixing the deadlock is an improvement, but > > > > dropping logs (particularly a memory warning like in your example) > > > > seems undesirable. > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your reviewing, Jeffrey. > > > > > > Agreed with you for the concern. > > > > > > To be honest, I am not familiar with the msm uart driver, so have no > > > confidence which is the best way for uart port operations. I can > > > think out one possible fixing is shown in below, if detects the lock > > > is not acquired then it will force to reset UART port before exit the > > > function __msm_console_write(). > > > > > > This approach is not tested yet and it looks too arbitrary; I will > > > give a try for it. At the meantime, welcome any insight suggestion > > > with proper register operations. > > > > According to the documentation, NCF_TX is only needed for SW transmit > > mode, where software is directly puttting characters in the fifo. Its > > not needed for BAM mode. According to your example, recursive console > > printing will only happen in BAM mode, and not in SW mode. Perhaps if > > we put the NCF_TX uses to just the SW mode, we avoid the issue and can > > allow recursive printing? > > Thanks for the suggestion! But based on the suggestion, I tried to > change code as below, the console even cannot work when boot the > kernel: > > static void msm_reset_dm_count(struct uart_port *port, int count) > { > + u32 val; > + > msm_wait_for_xmitr(port); > - msm_write(port, count, UARTDM_NCF_TX); > - msm_read(port, UARTDM_NCF_TX); > + > + val = msm_read(port, UARTDM_DMEN); > + > + /* > + * NCF is only enabled for SW transmit mode and is > + * skipped for BAM mode. > + */ > + if (!(val & UARTDM_DMEN_TX_BAM_ENABLE) && > + !(val & UARTDM_DMEN_RX_BAM_ENABLE)) { > + msm_write(port, count, UARTDM_NCF_TX); > + msm_read(port, UARTDM_NCF_TX); > + } > } > > > Alternatively, when exit from __msm_console_write() and if detect the > case for without acquiring spinlock, invoke msm_wait_for_xmitr() to wait > for transmit completion looks a good candidate solution. The updated > patch is as below. Please let me know if this is doable? > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > index 1db79ee8a886..aa6a494c898d 100644 > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > @@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ struct msm_port { > bool break_detected; > struct msm_dma tx_dma; > struct msm_dma rx_dma; > + struct cpumask curr_user; > }; > > #define UART_TO_MSM(uart_port) container_of(uart_port, struct msm_port, uart) > @@ -440,6 +441,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > u32 val; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > /* Already stopped */ > if (!dma->count) > @@ -474,6 +476,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > > msm_handle_tx(port); > done: > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > } > > @@ -548,6 +551,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > u32 val; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > /* Already stopped */ > if (!dma->count) > @@ -594,6 +598,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > > msm_start_rx_dma(msm_port); > done: > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > if (count) > @@ -932,6 +937,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > u32 val; > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > misr = msm_read(port, UART_MISR); > msm_write(port, 0, UART_IMR); /* disable interrupt */ > > @@ -963,6 +969,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > msm_handle_delta_cts(port); > > msm_write(port, msm_port->imr, UART_IMR); /* restore interrupt */ > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > return IRQ_HANDLED; > @@ -1573,10 +1580,12 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) > static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) > { > + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); > int i; > int num_newlines = 0; > bool replaced = false; > void __iomem *tf; > + int locked = 1; > > if (is_uartdm) > tf = port->membase + UARTDM_TF; > @@ -1589,7 +1598,15 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > num_newlines++; > count += num_newlines; > > - spin_lock(&port->lock); > + if (port->sysrq) > + locked = 0; > + else if (oops_in_progress) > + locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); > + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) > + locked = 0; > + else > + spin_lock(&port->lock); > + > if (is_uartdm) > msm_reset_dm_count(port, count); > > @@ -1625,7 +1642,12 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > iowrite32_rep(tf, buf, 1); > i += num_chars; > } > - spin_unlock(&port->lock); > + > + if (!locked) > + msm_wait_for_xmitr(port); Sorry, catching up from some travel. I don't understand this. At this point, haven't we already called msm_reset_dm_count() and "corrupted" the state of the hardware? > + > + if (locked) > + spin_unlock(&port->lock); > }
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:21 AM Rainer Sickinger <rainersickinger.official@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can't you just exit with System.exit()? Isn't System.exit() a Java thing, and we are in a C environment? > > Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 17:14 Uhr schrieb Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>: >> >> On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:42:31PM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> > > > > This patch fixes the deadlock issue for recursive output; it adds a >> > > > > variable 'curr_user' to indicate the uart port is used by which CPU, if >> > > > > the CPU has acquired spinlock and wants to execute recursive output, >> > > > > it will directly bail out. Here we don't choose to avoid locking and >> > > > > print out log, the reason is in this case we don't want to reset the >> > > > > uart port with function msm_reset_dm_count(); otherwise it can introduce >> > > > > confliction with other flows and results in uart port malfunction and >> > > > > later cannot output anymore. >> > > > >> > > > Is this not fixable? Sure, fixing the deadlock is an improvement, but >> > > > dropping logs (particularly a memory warning like in your example) >> > > > seems undesirable. >> > > >> > > Thanks a lot for your reviewing, Jeffrey. >> > > >> > > Agreed with you for the concern. >> > > >> > > To be honest, I am not familiar with the msm uart driver, so have no >> > > confidence which is the best way for uart port operations. I can >> > > think out one possible fixing is shown in below, if detects the lock >> > > is not acquired then it will force to reset UART port before exit the >> > > function __msm_console_write(). >> > > >> > > This approach is not tested yet and it looks too arbitrary; I will >> > > give a try for it. At the meantime, welcome any insight suggestion >> > > with proper register operations. >> > >> > According to the documentation, NCF_TX is only needed for SW transmit >> > mode, where software is directly puttting characters in the fifo. Its >> > not needed for BAM mode. According to your example, recursive console >> > printing will only happen in BAM mode, and not in SW mode. Perhaps if >> > we put the NCF_TX uses to just the SW mode, we avoid the issue and can >> > allow recursive printing? >> >> Thanks for the suggestion! But based on the suggestion, I tried to >> change code as below, the console even cannot work when boot the >> kernel: >> >> static void msm_reset_dm_count(struct uart_port *port, int count) >> { >> + u32 val; >> + >> msm_wait_for_xmitr(port); >> - msm_write(port, count, UARTDM_NCF_TX); >> - msm_read(port, UARTDM_NCF_TX); >> + >> + val = msm_read(port, UARTDM_DMEN); >> + >> + /* >> + * NCF is only enabled for SW transmit mode and is >> + * skipped for BAM mode. >> + */ >> + if (!(val & UARTDM_DMEN_TX_BAM_ENABLE) && >> + !(val & UARTDM_DMEN_RX_BAM_ENABLE)) { >> + msm_write(port, count, UARTDM_NCF_TX); >> + msm_read(port, UARTDM_NCF_TX); >> + } >> } >> >> >> Alternatively, when exit from __msm_console_write() and if detect the >> case for without acquiring spinlock, invoke msm_wait_for_xmitr() to wait >> for transmit completion looks a good candidate solution. The updated >> patch is as below. Please let me know if this is doable? >> >> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c >> index 1db79ee8a886..aa6a494c898d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c >> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c >> @@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ struct msm_port { >> bool break_detected; >> struct msm_dma tx_dma; >> struct msm_dma rx_dma; >> + struct cpumask curr_user; >> }; >> >> #define UART_TO_MSM(uart_port) container_of(uart_port, struct msm_port, uart) >> @@ -440,6 +441,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) >> u32 val; >> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); >> + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); >> >> /* Already stopped */ >> if (!dma->count) >> @@ -474,6 +476,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) >> >> msm_handle_tx(port); >> done: >> + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); >> } >> >> @@ -548,6 +551,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) >> u32 val; >> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); >> + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); >> >> /* Already stopped */ >> if (!dma->count) >> @@ -594,6 +598,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) >> >> msm_start_rx_dma(msm_port); >> done: >> + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); >> >> if (count) >> @@ -932,6 +937,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) >> u32 val; >> >> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); >> + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); >> misr = msm_read(port, UART_MISR); >> msm_write(port, 0, UART_IMR); /* disable interrupt */ >> >> @@ -963,6 +969,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) >> msm_handle_delta_cts(port); >> >> msm_write(port, msm_port->imr, UART_IMR); /* restore interrupt */ >> + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); >> >> return IRQ_HANDLED; >> @@ -1573,10 +1580,12 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) >> static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, >> unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) >> { >> + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); >> int i; >> int num_newlines = 0; >> bool replaced = false; >> void __iomem *tf; >> + int locked = 1; >> >> if (is_uartdm) >> tf = port->membase + UARTDM_TF; >> @@ -1589,7 +1598,15 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, >> num_newlines++; >> count += num_newlines; >> >> - spin_lock(&port->lock); >> + if (port->sysrq) >> + locked = 0; >> + else if (oops_in_progress) >> + locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); >> + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) >> + locked = 0; >> + else >> + spin_lock(&port->lock); >> + >> if (is_uartdm) >> msm_reset_dm_count(port, count); >> >> @@ -1625,7 +1642,12 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, >> iowrite32_rep(tf, buf, 1); >> i += num_chars; >> } >> - spin_unlock(&port->lock); >> + >> + if (!locked) >> + msm_wait_for_xmitr(port); >> + >> + if (locked) >> + spin_unlock(&port->lock); >> }
Hi Jeffrey, On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:49:52AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:13 AM Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:42:31PM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > This patch fixes the deadlock issue for recursive output; it adds a > > > > > > variable 'curr_user' to indicate the uart port is used by which CPU, if > > > > > > the CPU has acquired spinlock and wants to execute recursive output, > > > > > > it will directly bail out. Here we don't choose to avoid locking and > > > > > > print out log, the reason is in this case we don't want to reset the > > > > > > uart port with function msm_reset_dm_count(); otherwise it can introduce > > > > > > confliction with other flows and results in uart port malfunction and > > > > > > later cannot output anymore. > > > > > > > > > > Is this not fixable? Sure, fixing the deadlock is an improvement, but > > > > > dropping logs (particularly a memory warning like in your example) > > > > > seems undesirable. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your reviewing, Jeffrey. > > > > > > > > Agreed with you for the concern. > > > > > > > > To be honest, I am not familiar with the msm uart driver, so have no > > > > confidence which is the best way for uart port operations. I can > > > > think out one possible fixing is shown in below, if detects the lock > > > > is not acquired then it will force to reset UART port before exit the > > > > function __msm_console_write(). > > > > > > > > This approach is not tested yet and it looks too arbitrary; I will > > > > give a try for it. At the meantime, welcome any insight suggestion > > > > with proper register operations. > > > > > > According to the documentation, NCF_TX is only needed for SW transmit > > > mode, where software is directly puttting characters in the fifo. Its > > > not needed for BAM mode. According to your example, recursive console > > > printing will only happen in BAM mode, and not in SW mode. Perhaps if > > > we put the NCF_TX uses to just the SW mode, we avoid the issue and can > > > allow recursive printing? > > > > Thanks for the suggestion! But based on the suggestion, I tried to > > change code as below, the console even cannot work when boot the > > kernel: > > > > static void msm_reset_dm_count(struct uart_port *port, int count) > > { > > + u32 val; > > + > > msm_wait_for_xmitr(port); > > - msm_write(port, count, UARTDM_NCF_TX); > > - msm_read(port, UARTDM_NCF_TX); > > + > > + val = msm_read(port, UARTDM_DMEN); > > + > > + /* > > + * NCF is only enabled for SW transmit mode and is > > + * skipped for BAM mode. > > + */ > > + if (!(val & UARTDM_DMEN_TX_BAM_ENABLE) && > > + !(val & UARTDM_DMEN_RX_BAM_ENABLE)) { > > + msm_write(port, count, UARTDM_NCF_TX); > > + msm_read(port, UARTDM_NCF_TX); > > + } > > } > > > > > > Alternatively, when exit from __msm_console_write() and if detect the > > case for without acquiring spinlock, invoke msm_wait_for_xmitr() to wait > > for transmit completion looks a good candidate solution. The updated > > patch is as below. Please let me know if this is doable? > > > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > > index 1db79ee8a886..aa6a494c898d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c > > @@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ struct msm_port { > > bool break_detected; > > struct msm_dma tx_dma; > > struct msm_dma rx_dma; > > + struct cpumask curr_user; > > }; > > > > #define UART_TO_MSM(uart_port) container_of(uart_port, struct msm_port, uart) > > @@ -440,6 +441,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > > u32 val; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > > /* Already stopped */ > > if (!dma->count) > > @@ -474,6 +476,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) > > > > msm_handle_tx(port); > > done: > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > } > > > > @@ -548,6 +551,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > > u32 val; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > > > /* Already stopped */ > > if (!dma->count) > > @@ -594,6 +598,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) > > > > msm_start_rx_dma(msm_port); > > done: > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > > > if (count) > > @@ -932,6 +937,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > > u32 val; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); > > + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > misr = msm_read(port, UART_MISR); > > msm_write(port, 0, UART_IMR); /* disable interrupt */ > > > > @@ -963,6 +969,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) > > msm_handle_delta_cts(port); > > > > msm_write(port, msm_port->imr, UART_IMR); /* restore interrupt */ > > + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); > > > > return IRQ_HANDLED; > > @@ -1573,10 +1580,12 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) > > static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > > unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) > > { > > + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); > > int i; > > int num_newlines = 0; > > bool replaced = false; > > void __iomem *tf; > > + int locked = 1; > > > > if (is_uartdm) > > tf = port->membase + UARTDM_TF; > > @@ -1589,7 +1598,15 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > > num_newlines++; > > count += num_newlines; > > > > - spin_lock(&port->lock); > > + if (port->sysrq) > > + locked = 0; > > + else if (oops_in_progress) > > + locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); > > + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) > > + locked = 0; > > + else > > + spin_lock(&port->lock); > > + > > if (is_uartdm) > > msm_reset_dm_count(port, count); > > > > @@ -1625,7 +1642,12 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, > > iowrite32_rep(tf, buf, 1); > > i += num_chars; > > } > > - spin_unlock(&port->lock); > > + > > + if (!locked) > > + msm_wait_for_xmitr(port); > > Sorry, catching up from some travel. > > I don't understand this. At this point, haven't we already called > msm_reset_dm_count() and "corrupted" the state of the hardware? Yeah, at here msm_reset_dm_count() has been called. msm_wait_for_xmitr() is used to wait for completing transmition. So we can get flow as: msm_complete_tx_dma() kmalloc() fail __msm_console_write() msm_reset_dm_count() output logs msm_wait_for_xmitr() => ensure to not impact out flow My essential reason for adding msm_wait_for_xmitr() is to cleanup the "corrupted" state before return to out flow. Thanks, Leo Yan > > + > > + if (locked) > > + spin_unlock(&port->lock); > > }
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c index 889538182e83..06076cd2948f 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c @@ -182,6 +182,7 @@ struct msm_port { bool break_detected; struct msm_dma tx_dma; struct msm_dma rx_dma; + struct cpumask curr_user; }; #define UART_TO_MSM(uart_port) container_of(uart_port, struct msm_port, uart) @@ -436,6 +437,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) u32 val; spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); /* Already stopped */ if (!dma->count) @@ -470,6 +472,7 @@ static void msm_complete_tx_dma(void *args) msm_handle_tx(port); done: + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); } @@ -544,6 +547,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) u32 val; spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); /* Already stopped */ if (!dma->count) @@ -590,6 +594,7 @@ static void msm_complete_rx_dma(void *args) msm_start_rx_dma(msm_port); done: + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); if (count) @@ -931,6 +936,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) u32 val; spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); misr = msm_read(port, UART_MISR); msm_write(port, 0, UART_IMR); /* disable interrupt */ @@ -962,6 +968,7 @@ static irqreturn_t msm_uart_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) msm_handle_delta_cts(port); msm_write(port, msm_port->imr, UART_IMR); /* restore interrupt */ + cpumask_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); return IRQ_HANDLED; @@ -1572,6 +1579,7 @@ static inline struct uart_port *msm_get_port_from_line(unsigned int line) static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, unsigned int count, bool is_uartdm) { + struct msm_port *msm_port = UART_TO_MSM(port); int i; int num_newlines = 0; bool replaced = false; @@ -1593,6 +1601,8 @@ static void __msm_console_write(struct uart_port *port, const char *s, locked = 0; else if (oops_in_progress) locked = spin_trylock(&port->lock); + else if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &msm_port->curr_user)) + return; else spin_lock(&port->lock);
The uart driver might run into deadlock caused by recursive output; the basic flow is after uart driver has acquired the port spinlock, then it invokes some functions, e.g. dma engine operations and allocate dma descriptor with kzalloc(), if the system has very less free memory, the kernel will give out warning by printing logs, thus recursive output will happen and at the second time the attempting to acquire lock will cause deadlock. The detailed flow is shown as below: msm_uart_irq() spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags) => First time to acquire lock msm_handle_tx(port) msm_handle_tx_dma() dmaengine_prep_slave_single() bam_prep_slave_sg() kzalloc() __kmalloc() ___slab_alloc() alloc_pages_current() __alloc_pages_nodemask() warn_alloc() printk() msm_console_write() __msm_console_write() spin_lock(&port->lock) => Cause deadlock This patch fixes the deadlock issue for recursive output; it adds a variable 'curr_user' to indicate the uart port is used by which CPU, if the CPU has acquired spinlock and wants to execute recursive output, it will directly bail out. Here we don't choose to avoid locking and print out log, the reason is in this case we don't want to reset the uart port with function msm_reset_dm_count(); otherwise it can introduce confliction with other flows and results in uart port malfunction and later cannot output anymore. Fixes: 99693945013a ("tty: serial: msm: Add RX DMA support") Fixes: 3a878c430fd6 ("tty: serial: msm: Add TX DMA support") Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> --- drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)