Re: [PATCH] PM / Domains: Release mutex when powering on master domain

[Kevin Hilman]

Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Commit ba2bbfbf6307 (PM / Domains: Remove intermediate states from the
> power off sequence) removed the mutex_unlock()/_lock() around powering on
> a genpd's master domain in __genpd_poweron().
>
> Since all genpd's share a mutex lockdep class, this causes a "possible
> recursive locking detected" lockdep warning on boot when trying to power
> on a genpd slave domain:
>
> [    1.893137] =============================================
> [    1.893139] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [    1.893143] 3.18.0 #531 Not tainted
> [    1.893145] ---------------------------------------------
> [    1.893148] kworker/u8:4/113 is trying to acquire lock:
> [    1.893167]  (&genpd->lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffc000573818>] genpd_poweron+0x30/0x70
> [    1.893169]
> [    1.893169] but task is already holding lock:
> [    1.893179]  (&genpd->lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffc000573818>] genpd_poweron+0x30/0x70
> [    1.893182]
> [    1.893182] other info that might help us debug this:
> [    1.893184]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [    1.893184]
> [    1.893185]        CPU0
> [    1.893187]        ----
> [    1.893191]   lock(&genpd->lock);
> [    1.893195]   lock(&genpd->lock);
> [    1.893196]
> [    1.893196]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> [    1.893196]
> [    1.893198]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> [    1.893198]
> [    1.893201] 4 locks held by kworker/u8:4/113:
> [    1.893217]  #0:  ("%s""deferwq"){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffc00023b4e0>] process_one_work+0x1f8/0x50c
> [    1.893229]  #1:  (deferred_probe_work){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffc00023b4e0>] process_one_work+0x1f8/0x50c
> [    1.893241]  #2:  (&dev->mutex){......}, at: [<ffffffc000560920>] __device_attach+0x40/0x12c
> [    1.893251]  #3:  (&genpd->lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffc000573818>] genpd_poweron+0x30/0x70
> [    1.893253]
> [    1.893253] stack backtrace:
> [    1.893259] CPU: 2 PID: 113 Comm: kworker/u8:4 Not tainted 3.18.0 #531
> [    1.893269] Workqueue: deferwq deferred_probe_work_func
> [    1.893271] Call trace:
> [    1.893295] [<ffffffc000269dcc>] __lock_acquire+0x68c/0x19a8
> [    1.893299] [<ffffffc00026b954>] lock_acquire+0x128/0x164
> [    1.893304] [<ffffffc00084e090>] mutex_lock_nested+0x90/0x3b4
> [    1.893308] [<ffffffc000573814>] genpd_poweron+0x2c/0x70
> [    1.893312] [<ffffffc0005738ac>] __genpd_poweron.part.14+0x54/0xcc
> [    1.893316] [<ffffffc000573834>] genpd_poweron+0x4c/0x70
> [    1.893321] [<ffffffc00057447c>] genpd_dev_pm_attach+0x160/0x19c
> [    1.893326] [<ffffffc00056931c>] dev_pm_domain_attach+0x1c/0x2c
> ...
>
> Fix this by releasing the slaves mutex before acquiring the master's,
> which restores the old behavior.
>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Fixes: 5d837eef7b99 ("PM / Domains: Remove intermediate states from the power off sequence")
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Looks like the locking cleanup of the original patch may have been a bit
too aggressive.  Ulf should confirm, but this looks right to me.

Acked-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/