mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gabor Juhos <j4g8y7@gmail.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>, Georgi Djakov <djakov@kernel.org>
Cc: Raviteja Laggyshetty <quic_rlaggysh@quicinc.com>,
	Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] interconnect: avoid memory allocation when 'icc_bw_lock' is held
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 21:38:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5f8c1163-d347-4c93-968c-3fd191336f04@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aFK0a8AIOl704DpP@hovoldconsulting.com>

Hi Johan,

Thank you for taking a look into this.

2025. 06. 18. 14:43 keltezéssel, Johan Hovold írta:
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 04:46:22PM +0200, Gabor Juhos wrote:
>> The 'icc_bw_lock' mutex is introduced in commit af42269c3523
>> ("interconnect: Fix locking for runpm vs reclaim") in order
>> to decouple serialization of bw aggregation from codepaths
>> that require memory allocation.
>>
>> However commit d30f83d278a9 ("interconnect: core: Add dynamic
>> id allocation support") added a devm_kasprintf() call into a
>> path protected by the 'icc_bw_lock' which causes this lockdep
>> warning (at least on the IPQ9574 platform):
>>
>>     ======================================================
>>     WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>>     6.15.0-next-20250529 #0 Not tainted
>>     ------------------------------------------------------
>>     swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock:
>>     ffffffc081df57d8 (icc_bw_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: icc_init+0x8/0x108
>>
>>     but task is already holding lock:
>>     ffffffc081d7db10 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: icc_init+0x28/0x108
>>
>>     which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
> Thanks for fixing this. I get a similar splat with sc8280xp and the
> icc_ism_l3 driver since 6.16-rc1.
> 
> Georgi, this is a regression that prevents lockdep from being used on a
> bunch of Qualcomm platforms and should be fixed in mainline ASAP (e.g.
> to avoid further locking issues from being introduced).
> 
>> Move the memory allocation part of the code outside of the protected
>> path to eliminate the warning. Also add a note about why it is moved
>> to there,
>>
>> Fixes: d30f83d278a9 ("interconnect: core: Add dynamic id allocation support")
>> Signed-off-by: Gabor Juhos <j4g8y7@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/interconnect/core.c | 14 ++++++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/interconnect/core.c b/drivers/interconnect/core.c
>> index 1a41e59c77f85a811f78986e98401625f4cadfa3..acdb3b8f1e54942dbb1b71ec2b170b08ad709e6b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/interconnect/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/interconnect/core.c
>> @@ -1023,6 +1023,16 @@ void icc_node_add(struct icc_node *node, struct icc_provider *provider)
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	mutex_lock(&icc_lock);
>> +
>> +	if (node->id >= ICC_DYN_ID_START) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Memory allocation must be done outside of codepaths
>> +		 * protected by icc_bw_lock.
>> +		 */
>> +		node->name = devm_kasprintf(provider->dev, GFP_KERNEL, "%s@%s",
>> +					    node->name, dev_name(provider->dev));
>> +	}
> 
> The node name has already been set by the caller and the node has not
> been added yet, so I think you should move this before taking the
> icc_lock.

It seems reasonable. I will send a modified version, which also contains
handling of memory allocation failures.

> 
>> +
>>  	mutex_lock(&icc_bw_lock);
>>  
>>  	node->provider = provider;
> 
> With that addressed, feel free to add my:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> Tested-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>


Regards,
Gabor

      reply	other threads:[~2025-06-18 19:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <TIkPOGVjPeCjPzjVtlSb6V5CIcpaXf2-6WG6HjAyaOW59Hj01-9VK7Z8DKadakOKr6fJeQICi6h0Z8mft9DQyg==@protonmail.internalid>
2025-05-29 14:46 ` Gabor Juhos
2025-05-30  9:16   ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2025-06-03  9:15     ` Gabor Juhos
2025-06-03 10:01       ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2025-06-18 12:50         ` Johan Hovold
2025-06-18 13:28           ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2025-06-18 12:43   ` Johan Hovold
2025-06-18 19:38     ` Gabor Juhos [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5f8c1163-d347-4c93-968c-3fd191336f04@gmail.com \
    --to=j4g8y7@gmail.com \
    --cc=bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org \
    --cc=djakov@kernel.org \
    --cc=johan@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quic_rlaggysh@quicinc.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®