Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] Add BLK_CTL support for i.MX8MP

[Marek Vasut]

On 3/3/21 11:47 AM, Abel Vesa wrote:
> On 20-11-03 13:18:12, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > The BLK_CTL according to HW design is basically the wrapper of the entire
> > function specific group of IPs and holds GPRs that usually cannot be placed
> > into one specific IP from that group. Some of these GPRs are used to control
> > some clocks, other some resets, others some very specific function that does
> > not fit into clocks or resets. Since the clocks are registered using the i.MX
> > clock subsystem API, the driver is placed into the clock subsystem, but it
> > also registers the resets. For the other functionalities that other GPRs might
> > have, the syscon is used.
>
> This approach seems to be introducing a possible ABBA deadlock due to
> the core clock and genpd locking. Here is a backtrace I got from Pete
> Zhang (he reported the issue on the internal mailing list):
>
> [   11.667711][  T108] -> #1 (&genpd->mlock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [   11.675041][  T108]        __lock_acquire+0xae4/0xef8
> [   11.680093][  T108]        lock_acquire+0xfc/0x2f8
> [   11.684888][  T108]        __mutex_lock+0x90/0x870
> [   11.689685][  T108]        mutex_lock_nested+0x44/0x50
> [   11.694826][  T108]        genpd_lock_mtx+0x18/0x24
> [   11.699706][  T108]        genpd_runtime_resume+0x90/0x214 (hold genpd->mlock)
> [   11.705194][  T108]        __rpm_callback+0x80/0x2c0
> [   11.710160][  T108]        rpm_resume+0x468/0x650
> [   11.714866][  T108]        __pm_runtime_resume+0x60/0x88
> [   11.720180][  T108]        clk_pm_runtime_get+0x28/0x9c
> [   11.725410][  T108]        clk_disable_unused_subtree+0x8c/0x144
> [   11.731420][  T108]        clk_disable_unused_subtree+0x124/0x144
> [   11.737518][  T108]        clk_disable_unused+0xa4/0x11c (hold prepare_lock)
> [   11.742833][  T108]        do_one_initcall+0x98/0x178
> [   11.747888][  T108]        do_initcall_level+0x9c/0xb8
> [   11.753028][  T108]        do_initcalls+0x54/0x94
> [   11.757736][  T108]        do_basic_setup+0x24/0x30
> [   11.762614][  T108]        kernel_init_freeable+0x70/0xa4
> [   11.768014][  T108]        kernel_init+0x14/0x18c
> [   11.772722][  T108]        ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>
> [   11.777512][  T108] -> #0 (prepare_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [   11.784749][  T108]        check_noncircular+0x134/0x13c
> [   11.790064][  T108]        validate_chain+0x590/0x2a04
> [   11.795204][  T108]        __lock_acquire+0xae4/0xef8
> [   11.800258][  T108]        lock_acquire+0xfc/0x2f8
> [   11.805050][  T108]        __mutex_lock+0x90/0x870
> [   11.809841][  T108]        mutex_lock_nested+0x44/0x50
> [   11.814983][  T108]        clk_unprepare+0x5c/0x100 ((hold prepare_lock))
> [   11.819864][  T108]        imx8m_pd_power_off+0xac/0x110
> [   11.825179][  T108]        genpd_power_off+0x1b4/0x2dc
> [   11.830318][  T108]        genpd_power_off_work_fn+0x38/0x58 (hold genpd->mlock)
> [   11.835981][  T108]        process_one_work+0x270/0x444
> [   11.841208][  T108]        worker_thread+0x280/0x4e4
> [   11.846176][  T108]        kthread+0x13c/0x14
> [   11.850621][  T108]        ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>
> Now, this has been reproduced only on the NXP internal tree, but I think
> it is pretty obvious this could happen in upstream too, with this
> patchset applied.
>
> First, my thought was to change the prepare_lock/enable_lock in clock
> core, from a global approach to a per clock basis. But that doesn't
> actually fix the issue.
>
> The usecase seen above is due to clk_disable_unused, but the same could
> happen when a clock consumer calls prepare/unprepare on a clock.
>
> I guess the conclusion is that the current state of the clock core and
> genpd implementation does not support a usecase where a clock controller
> has a PD which in turn uses another clock (from another clock controller).
>
> Jacky, Pete, did I miss anything here ?

Just for completeness, I have a feeling I already managed to trigger 
this and discussed this with Lucas before, so this concern is certainly 
valid.