| Message ID | 20130418200855.GA24086@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | Bjorn Helgaas |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > The following lockdep report triggers since 3.9-rc1: > > ============================================= > [ 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 > > 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 which 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 causes > a lockep warning. > > 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> > Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Thanks, Michael. I put this in my for-linus branch: http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git/log/?h=for-linus I'll send a pull request to Linus today. Bjorn > --- > > Changes from v1: > - clarified commit log and added Ack by Tejun Heo > patch is unchanged. > > 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); -- 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 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote: >> The following lockdep report triggers since 3.9-rc1: >> >> ============================================= >> [ 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 >> >> 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 which 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 causes >> a lockep warning. >> >> 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> >> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > > Thanks, Michael. I put this in my for-linus branch: > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git/log/?h=for-linus > > I'll send a pull request to Linus today. Actually, let me make sure I understand this correctly: This patch fixes the lockdep warning, but it does not fix an actual deadlock or make any functional change. Is that right? If that's true, how much pain would it cause to just hold this for v3.9.1? I'm nervous about doing a warning fix when we're only a day or two before releasing v3.9. Bjorn >> --- >> >> Changes from v1: >> - clarified commit log and added Ack by Tejun Heo >> patch is unchanged. >> >> 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); -- 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 18, 2013 at 03:57:36PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > >> The following lockdep report triggers since 3.9-rc1: > >> > >> ============================================= > >> [ 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 > >> > >> 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 which 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 causes > >> a lockep warning. > >> > >> 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> > >> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> > > > > Thanks, Michael. I put this in my for-linus branch: > > > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/helgaas/pci.git/log/?h=for-linus > > > > I'll send a pull request to Linus today. > > Actually, let me make sure I understand this correctly: This patch > fixes the lockdep warning, but it does not fix an actual deadlock or > make any functional change. Is that right? Tejun said that this warning is a false positive, so yes. > If that's true, how much pain would it cause to just hold this for > v3.9.1? I'm nervous about doing a warning fix when we're only a day > or two before releasing v3.9. > > Bjorn I don't have this hardware, so I don't know. It was apparently reported by real users ... > >> --- > >> > >> Changes from v1: > >> - clarified commit log and added Ack by Tejun Heo > >> patch is unchanged. > >> > >> 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); -- 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 18, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > So, the thing is there is no actual deadlock. If you're okay with releasing > w/ spurious lockdep warning, leaving things alone should be fine. An issue > with mst's patch is that it actually changes the behavior to avoid a > spurious warning. An alternative course would be leaving it alone now and > remove the spurious warning during the coming devel cycle and mark it w/ > -stable. If I understand correctly, you need v3.9-rc1 or later, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y, and an SR-IOV device to see the warning. I like the idea of fixing the spurious warning for v3.10 and backporting to -stable. It sounds like there's a cleaner fix in the works that needs a bit more polishing. If we need a quick fix sooner, we'll still have this one in our back pocket. Bjorn -- 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 18, 2013 at 08:04:47PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > So, the thing is there is no actual deadlock. If you're okay with releasing w/ > spurious lockdep warning, leaving things alone should be fine. An issue with > mst's patch is that it actually changes the behavior to avoid a spurious > warning. Yes but in fact, isn't it cleaner to avoid work_on if we are going to run on the local CPU, anyway? > An alternative course would be leaving it alone now and remove the > spurious warning during the coming devel cycle and mark it w/ -stable. > > Thanks. Okay. Could you send tested a version of work_on_nested? > -- > 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 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 which 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 causes a lockep warning. 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> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> --- Changes from v1: - clarified commit log and added Ack by Tejun Heo patch is unchanged. 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);