On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 04:38:06PM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, guys.
>
> cc'ing people from "workqueue, pci: INFO: possible recursive locking
> detected" thread.
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1525779
>
> So, to resolve that issue, we ripped out lockdep annotation from
> work_on_cpu() and cgroup is now experiencing deadlock involving
> work_on_cpu(). It *could* be that workqueue is actually broken or
> memcg is looping but it doesn't seem like a very good idea to not have
> lockdep annotation around work_on_cpu().
>
> IIRC, there was one pci code path which called work_on_cpu()
> recursively. Would it be possible for that path to use something like
> work_on_cpu_nested(XXX, depth) so that we can retain lockdep
> annotation on work_on_cpu()?
I'm open to changing the way pci_call_probe() works, but my opinion is
that the PCI path that causes trouble is a broken design, and we shouldn't
complicate the work_on_cpu() interface just to accommodate that broken
design.
The problem is that when a PF .probe() method that calls
pci_enable_sriov(), we add new VF devices and call *their* .probe()
methods before the PF .probe() method completes. That is ugly and
error-prone.
When we call .probe() methods for the VFs, we're obviously already on the
correct node, because the VFs are on the same node as the PF, so I think
the best short-term fix is Alexander's patch to avoid work_on_cpu() when
we're already on the correct node -- something like the (untested) patch
below.
Bjorn
PCI: Avoid unnecessary CPU switch when calling driver .probe() method
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelg...@google.com>
If we are already on a CPU local to the device, call the driver .probe()
method directly without using work_on_cpu().
This is a workaround for a lockdep warning in the following scenario:
pci_call_probe
work_on_cpu(cpu, local_pci_probe, ...)
driver .probe
pci_enable_sriov
...
pci_bus_add_device
...
pci_call_probe
work_on_cpu(cpu, local_pci_probe, ...)
It would be better to fix PCI so we don't call VF driver .probe() methods
from inside a PF driver .probe() method, but that's a bigger project.
This patch is due to Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.du...@intel.com>; I merely
added the preemption disable.
Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65071
Link:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAE9FiQXYQEAZ=0sg6+2odffbqfls9mpon1xvirr9adbxpxc...@mail.gmail.com
Link:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20130624195942.40795.27292.st...@ahduyck-cp1.jf.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelg...@google.com>
---
drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
index 454853507b7e..accae06aa79a 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
@@ -293,7 +293,9 @@ static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct
pci_dev *dev,
its local memory on the right node without any need to
change it. */
node = dev_to_node(&dev->dev);
- if (node >= 0) {
+ preempt_disable();
+
+ if (node >= 0 && node != numa_node_id()) {
int cpu;
get_online_cpus();
@@ -305,6 +307,8 @@ static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct
pci_dev *dev,
put_online_cpus();
} else
error = local_pci_probe(&ddi);
+
+ preempt_enable();
return error;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
