Re: [PATCH] PCI: Don't use Printk in raw_spinlocks

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>]

On 9/10/2020 11:46 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 08:21:06AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2020 at 8:07 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> [+cc Mark, Florian, Rob, Scott]
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 09:25:49AM +0800, Xingxing Su wrote:
>>>> Do not use printk in raw_spinlocks,
>>>> it will cause BUG: Invalid wait context.
>>>>
>>>> The trace reported by lockdep follows.
>>>>
>>>> [    2.986113] =============================
>>>> [    2.986115] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
>>>> [    2.986116] 5.8.0-rc1+ #11 Not tainted
>>>> [    2.986118] -----------------------------
>>>> [    2.986120] swapper/0/1 is trying to lock:
>>>> [    2.986122] ffffffff80f5ddd8 (console_owner){....}-{3:3}, at: console_unlock+0x284/0x820
>>>> [    2.986130] other info that might help us debug this:
>>>> [    2.986132] context-{5:5}
>>>> [    2.986134] 3 locks held by swapper/0/1:
>>>> [    2.986135]  #0: 98000007fa03c990 (&dev->mutex){....}-{0:0}, at: device_driver_attach+0x28/0x90
>>>> [    2.986144]  #1: ffffffff80fb83a8 (pci_lock){....}-{2:2}, at: pci_bus_write_config_word+0x60/0xb8
>>>> [    2.986152]  #2: ffffffff80f5ded0 (console_lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: vprintk_emit+0x1b0/0x3b8
>>>> [    2.986161] stack backtrace:
>>>> [    2.986163] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc1+ #11
>>>> [    2.986164] Stack : 0000000000001d67 98000000030be9b0 0000000000000001 7b2aba74f6c4785b
>>>> [    2.986172]         7b2aba74f6c4785b 0000000000000000 98000007f89cb438 ffffffff80e7dc80
>>>> [    2.986181]         0000000000000001 000000000000000a 0000000000000001 0000000000000001
>>>> [    2.986189]         ffffffff80f4e156 fffffffffffffffd ffffffff80cc2d98 fffffffff8000000
>>>> [    2.986197]         0000000024000000 ffffffff80f40000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
>>>> [    2.986205]         ffffffff9500cce0 0000000000000000 ffffffff80f50000 ffffffff81546318
>>>> [    2.986213]         ffffffff81c4c3c0 0000000000000018 ffffffffbc000000 0000000000000000
>>>> [    2.986221]         ffffffff81340000 98000007f89c8000 98000007f89cb430 98000007f8a00000
>>>> [    2.986229]         ffffffff806be568 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
>>>> [    2.986237]         0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffffffff80211c1c 7b2aba74f6c4785b
>>>> [    2.986245]         ...
>>>> [    2.986250] Call Trace:
>>>> [    2.986251] [<ffffffff80211c1c>] show_stack+0x9c/0x130
>>>> [    2.986253] [<ffffffff806be568>] dump_stack+0xe8/0x150
>>>> [    2.986255] [<ffffffff802ad408>] __lock_acquire+0x570/0x3250
>>>> [    2.986257] [<ffffffff802abed0>] lock_acquire+0x118/0x558
>>>> [    2.986259] [<ffffffff802be764>] console_unlock+0x2e4/0x820
>>>> [    2.986261] [<ffffffff802c0a68>] vprintk_emit+0x1c0/0x3b8
>>>> [    2.986263] [<ffffffff807f45a8>] dev_vprintk_emit+0x1c8/0x210
>>>> [    2.986265] [<ffffffff807f462c>] dev_printk_emit+0x3c/0x60
>>>> [    2.986267] [<ffffffff807f499c>] _dev_warn+0x5c/0x80
>>>> [    2.986269] [<ffffffff806eea9c>] pci_generic_config_write32+0x154/0x160
>>>> [    2.986271] [<ffffffff806edca4>] pci_bus_write_config_word+0x84/0xb8
>>>> [    2.986273] [<ffffffff806f1664>] pci_setup_device+0x22c/0x768
>>>> [    2.986275] [<ffffffff806f26a0>] pci_scan_single_device+0xc8/0x100
>>>> [    2.986277] [<ffffffff806f2788>] pci_scan_slot+0xb0/0x178
>>>> [    2.986279] [<ffffffff806f3ae4>] pci_scan_child_bus_extend+0x5c/0x370
>>>> [    2.986281] [<ffffffff806f407c>] pci_scan_root_bus_bridge+0x6c/0xf0
>>>> [    2.986283] [<ffffffff806f411c>] pci_host_probe+0x1c/0xd8
>>>> [    2.986285] [<ffffffff807fa03c>] platform_drv_probe+0x54/0xb8
>>>> [    2.986287] [<ffffffff807f71f8>] really_probe+0x130/0x388
>>>> [    2.986289] [<ffffffff807f7594>] driver_probe_device+0x64/0xd8
>>>> [    2.986291] [<ffffffff807f7844>] device_driver_attach+0x84/0x90
>>>> [    2.986293] [<ffffffff807f7918>] __driver_attach+0xc8/0x128
>>>> [    2.986295] [<ffffffff807f4cac>] bus_for_each_dev+0x74/0xd8
>>>> [    2.986297] [<ffffffff807f6408>] bus_add_driver+0x170/0x250
>>>> [    2.986299] [<ffffffff807f899c>] driver_register+0x84/0x150
>>>> [    2.986301] [<ffffffff80200b08>] do_one_initcall+0x98/0x458
>>>> [    2.986303] [<ffffffff810212dc>] kernel_init_freeable+0x2c0/0x36c
>>>> [    2.986305] [<ffffffff80be7540>] kernel_init+0x10/0x128
>>>> [    2.986307] [<ffffffff80209d44>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x14/0x1c
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xingxing Su <suxingxing@loongson.cn>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/pci/access.c | 3 ---
>>>>   1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/access.c b/drivers/pci/access.c
>>>> index 79c4a2e..b3fc164 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/access.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/access.c
>>>> @@ -160,9 +160,6 @@ int pci_generic_config_write32(struct pci_bus *bus, unsigned int devfn,
>>>>         * write happen to have any RW1C (write-one-to-clear) bits set, we
>>>>         * just inadvertently cleared something we shouldn't have.
>>>>         */
>>>> -     dev_warn_ratelimited(&bus->dev, "%d-byte config write to %04x:%02x:%02x.%d offset %#x may corrupt adjacent RW1C bits\n",
>>>> -                          size, pci_domain_nr(bus), bus->number,
>>>> -                          PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn), where);
>>>
>>> We just changed this printk (see [1]), but I think we still have this
>>> lockdep problem even after Mark's change.  So I guess we need another
>>> think about this.
>>>
>>> Maybe we can print something when registering pci_ops that use
>>> pci_generic_config_write32()?
>>
>> That was my suggestion, but as Mark pointed out that doesn't work if
>> pci_generic_config_write32 is wrapped (which is 4 out of 8 cases).
>>
>> Also, 3 of the cases are only for the root bus (bridge). Are 32-bit
>> writes to a bridge going to cause problems? For xgene, interestingly,
>> with DT _write32 is needed, but for ACPI it is not (only _read32). I
>> think xgene is practically dead though a few people still have
>> systems, but likely xgene with DT is really dead. The ECAM case was
>> for QCom server which is also pretty much dead. SA1100 nano-engine is
>> really old and something only a few people have at most (Russell
>> King). So ignoring all those, we're left with just loongson and iproc.
>> Maybe just remove the warning?
> 
> Sigh, removing it sounds like the best option.

Given that we have to go by a list of drivers, how about we add another 
pci_bus_flags_t flag to indicate 32-bit configuration space accessors 
are used and key off that bit to issue the warning?
-- 
Florian