| Message ID | 20130411153030.GA22743@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Bjorn Helgaas |
| Headers | show |
Hello, On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:30:30PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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. Hmm... how about adding a work_on_cpu_nested() which takes @subclass argument? Wouldn't that be much cleaner? Thanks.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 11:05:17AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 06:30:30PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > 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. > > Hmm... how about adding a work_on_cpu_nested() which takes @subclass > argument? Wouldn't that be much cleaner? > > Thanks. Is that 3.9 material though? > -- > tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hey, On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 09:58:54PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Hmm... how about adding a work_on_cpu_nested() which takes @subclass > > argument? Wouldn't that be much cleaner? > > > > Thanks. > > Is that 3.9 material though? Why wouldn't it be? It's actually safer as it doesn't change any logic. It's just updating lockdep annotation, which is what's needed here anyway. Thanks.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:04:08PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hey, > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 09:58:54PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Hmm... how about adding a work_on_cpu_nested() which takes @subclass > > > argument? Wouldn't that be much cleaner? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Is that 3.9 material though? > > Why wouldn't it be? It's actually safer as it doesn't change any > logic. It's just updating lockdep annotation, which is what's needed > here anyway. > > Thanks. Hmm no, there's a real deadlock here: you are trying to flush from work1 from within work2 running on same workqueue. work2 can't event start running. The problem is not annotation. > -- > tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:17:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Hmm no, there's a real deadlock here: you are > trying to flush from work1 from within work2 running > on same workqueue. work2 can't event start running. > The problem is not annotation. No, that has changed years ago with introduction of cmwq. System workqueues are now expected to have high enough maximum concurrency to not cause deadlock as long as memory for worker creation is available, so as long as your work item doesn't directly sit in the memory reclaim path, it's safe to flush a different work item running on the same workqueue with sufficiently high max_active. Thanks.
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:20:05PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:17:17PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Hmm no, there's a real deadlock here: you are > > trying to flush from work1 from within work2 running > > on same workqueue. work2 can't event start running. > > The problem is not annotation. > > No, that has changed years ago with introduction of cmwq. System > workqueues are now expected to have high enough maximum concurrency to > not cause deadlock as long as memory for worker creation is available, > so as long as your work item doesn't directly sit in the memory > reclaim path, it's safe to flush a different work item running on the > same workqueue with sufficiently high max_active. > > Thanks. Okay, so you are saying it's a false-positive? Want to send a patch so Or can try it out? > -- > tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
============================================= [ 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@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> --- 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);