Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> | ======================================================
> | WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> | 4.13.0-rc6-00758-gd80d4177391f-dirty #112 Not tainted
> | ------------------------------------------------------
> | cpu-off.sh/426 is trying to acquire lock:
> |  ((complete)&st->done){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810cb344>] takedown_cpu+0x84/0xf0
> |
> | but task is already holding lock:
> |  (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811220f2>] irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> |
> | which lock already depends on the new lock.
> |
> | the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> |
> | -> #1 (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}:
> |        __mutex_lock+0x88/0x9a0
> |        mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> |        irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> |        irq_affinity_online_cpu+0x13/0xd0
> |        cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x4a/0x130
> |
> | -> #0 ((complete)&st->done){+.+.}:
> |        check_prev_add+0x351/0x700
> |        __lock_acquire+0x114a/0x1220
> |        lock_acquire+0x47/0x70
> |        wait_for_completion+0x5c/0x180
> |        takedown_cpu+0x84/0xf0
> |        cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x4a/0x130
> |        cpuhp_down_callbacks+0x3d/0x80
> â
> |
> | other info that might help us debug this:
> |
> |  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> |        CPU0                    CPU1
> |        ----                    ----
> |   lock(sparse_irq_lock);
> |                                lock((complete)&st->done);
> |                                lock(sparse_irq_lock);
> |   lock((complete)&st->done);
> |
> |  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> We hold the sparse_irq_lock lock while waiting for the completion in the
> CPU-down case and in the CPU-up case we acquire the sparse_irq_lock lock
> while the other CPU is waiting for the completion.
> This is not an issue if my interpretation of lockdep here is correct.
> 
> How do we annotate this?

Right, so I'm also seeing this one on offline. Its not making sense to
me. wait_for_completion() cannot be #0, we don't hold any other locks
(except the scheduler locks) while we have the complete_acquire() thing.

Now, I have enough hackery here to make it go away, but I'm not in fact
sure I understand things yet :-(