Re: [ 02/38] PCI/PM: Fix deadlock when unbinding device if parent inD3cold

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Thu Nov 29 2012 - 21:00:59 EST


On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 03:47:42PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 11:09 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 02:35 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:39 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > 3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > commit 90b5c1d7c45eeb622302680ff96ed30c1a2b6f0e upstream.
> > > >
> > > > If a PCI device and its parents are put into D3cold, unbinding the
> > > > device will trigger deadlock as follow:
> > > >
> > > > - driver_unbind
> > > > - device_release_driver
> > > > - device_lock(dev) <--- previous lock here
> > > > - __device_release_driver
> > > > - pm_runtime_get_sync
> > > > ...
> > > > - rpm_resume(dev)
> > > > - rpm_resume(dev->parent)
> > > > ...
> > > > - pci_pm_runtime_resume
> > > > ...
> > > > - pci_set_power_state
> > > > - __pci_start_power_transition
> > > > - pci_wakeup_bus(dev->parent->subordinate)
> > > > - pci_walk_bus
> > > > - device_lock(dev) <--- deadlock here
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If we do not do device_lock in pci_walk_bus, we can avoid deadlock.
> > > > Device_lock in pci_walk_bus is introduced in commit:
> > > > d71374dafbba7ec3f67371d3b7e9f6310a588808, corresponding email thread
> > > > is: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/26/38. The patch author Zhang Yanmin
> > > > said device_lock is added to pci_walk_bus because:
> > > >
> > > > Some error handling functions call pci_walk_bus. For example, PCIe
> > > > aer. Here we lock the device, so the driver wouldn't detach from the
> > > > device, as the cb might call driver's callback function.
> > > >
> > > > So I fixed the deadlock as follows:
> > > >
> > > > - remove device_lock from pci_walk_bus
> > > > - add device_lock into callback if callback will call driver's callback
> > > >
> > > > I checked pci_walk_bus users one by one, and found only PCIe aer needs
> > > > device lock.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > What about eeh_report_error() in
> > > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_driver.c?
> >
> > En... Because pci_walk_bus() invocation is removed in 3.7, so this
> > patch is only valid for 3.7. We need another version for 3.6.
>
> Here is the patch for 3.6. I have no powerpc machine, so build test
> only.
>
> Subject: [BUGFIX] PCI/PM: Fix deadlock when unbind device if its parent in D3cold
>
> If a PCI device and its parents are put into D3cold, unbinding the
> device will trigger deadlock as follow:
>
> - driver_unbind
> - device_release_driver
> - device_lock(dev) <--- previous lock here
> - __device_release_driver
> - pm_runtime_get_sync
> ...
> - rpm_resume(dev)
> - rpm_resume(dev->parent)
> ...
> - pci_pm_runtime_resume
> ...
> - pci_set_power_state
> - __pci_start_power_transition
> - pci_wakeup_bus(dev->parent->subordinate)
> - pci_walk_bus
> - device_lock(dev) <--- dead lock here
>
>
> If we do not do device_lock in pci_walk_bus, we can avoid dead lock.
> Device_lock in pci_walk_bus is introduced in commit:
> d71374dafbba7ec3f67371d3b7e9f6310a588808, corresponding email thread
> is: https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/26/38. The patch author Zhang Yanmin
> said device_lock is added to pci_walk_bus because:
>
> Some error handling functions call pci_walk_bus. For example, PCIe
> aer. Here we lock the device, so the driver wouldn't detach from the
> device, as the cb might call driver's callback function.
>
> So I fixed the dead lock as follow:
>
> - remove device_lock from pci_walk_bus
> - add device_lock into callback if callback will call driver's callback
>
> I checked pci_walk_bus users one by one, and found only PCIe aer needs
> device lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_driver.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++----------

Due to me applying a power pci patch,
feadf7c0a1a7c08c74bebb4a13b755f8c40e3bbc in Linus's tree to 3.6-stable,
this patch doesn't apply here anymore.

Because that patch is in the tree, is it now just safe to take your
original, unmodified, version of this patch for 3.6-stable?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/