Re: [PATCH] x86/apic/vector: Move pr_warn() outside of vector_lock

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 3/28/21 6:04 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Waiman,
>
> On Sun, Mar 28 2021 at 15:58, Waiman Long wrote:
>> It was found that the following circular locking dependency warning
>> could happen in some systems:
>>
>> [  218.097878] ======================================================
>> [  218.097879] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>> [  218.097880] 4.18.0-228.el8.x86_64+debug #1 Not tainted
>> [  218.097881] ------------------------------------------------------
>> [  218.097882] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [  218.097883] ffffffff84c27920 (console_owner){-.-.}, at: console_unlock+0x3fb/0x9f0
>> [  218.097886]
>> [  218.097887] but task is already holding lock:
>> [  218.097888] ffffffff84afca78 (vector_lock){-.-.}, at: x86_vector_activate+0xca/0xab0
>> [  218.097891]
>> [  218.097892] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>      :
>> [  218.097966] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [  218.097967]
>> [  218.097967] Chain exists of:
>> [  218.097968]   console_oc_lock_class --> vector_lock
>> [  218.097972]
>> [  218.097973]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>> [  218.097973]
>> [  218.097974]        CPU0                    CPU1
>> [  218.097975]        ----                    ----
>> [  218.097975]   lock(vector_lock);
>> [  218.097977]                                lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
>> [  218.097980]                                lock(vector_lock);
>> [  218.097981]   lock(console_owner);
>> [  218.097983]
>> [  218.097984]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> can you please post the full lockdep output?

Will do.


>> This lockdep warning was causing by printing of the warning message:
>>
>> [  218.095152] irq 3: Affinity broken due to vector space exhaustion.
>>
>> It looks that this warning message is relatively more common than
>> the other warnings in arch/x86/kernel/apic/vector.c. To avoid this
>> potential deadlock scenario, this patch moves all the pr_warn() calls
>> in the vector.c file outside of the vector_lock critical sections.
> Definitely not.
>
>> -static int activate_reserved(struct irq_data *irqd)
>> +static int activate_reserved(struct irq_data *irqd, unsigned long flags,
>> +			     bool *unlocked)
>>   {
>>   	struct apic_chip_data *apicd = apic_chip_data(irqd);
>>   	int ret;
>> @@ -410,6 +411,8 @@ static int activate_reserved(struct irq_data *irqd)
>>   	 */
>>   	if (!cpumask_subset(irq_data_get_effective_affinity_mask(irqd),
>>   			    irq_data_get_affinity_mask(irqd))) {
>> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vector_lock, flags);
>> +		*unlocked = true;
> What?
>
>>   		pr_warn("irq %u: Affinity broken due to vector space exhaustion.\n",
>>   			irqd->irq);
>>   	}
>> @@ -446,6 +449,7 @@ static int x86_vector_activate(struct irq_domain *dom, struct irq_data *irqd,
>>   {
>>   	struct apic_chip_data *apicd = apic_chip_data(irqd);
>>   	unsigned long flags;
>> +	bool unlocked = false;
>>   	int ret = 0;
>>   
>>   	trace_vector_activate(irqd->irq, apicd->is_managed,
>> @@ -459,8 +463,9 @@ static int x86_vector_activate(struct irq_domain *dom, struct irq_data *irqd,
>>   	else if (apicd->is_managed)
>>   		ret = activate_managed(irqd);
>>   	else if (apicd->has_reserved)
>> -		ret = activate_reserved(irqd);
>> -	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vector_lock, flags);
>> +		ret = activate_reserved(irqd, flags, &unlocked);
>> +	if (!unlocked)
>> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vector_lock, flags);
> Even moar what?
>
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
> This turns that code into complete unreadable gunk. No way.

I am sorry that this part of the patch is sloppy. I will revise it to 
make it better.

Cheers,
Longman