lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: 5e6669387e ("of/platform: Pause/resume sync state during init .."): [ 3.192726] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1 at drivers/base/core.c:688 device_links_supplier_sync_state_resume
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:01 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/2/19 3:19 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 7:00 AM kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> >>
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> >>
> >> commit 5e6669387e2287f25f09fd0abd279dae104cfa7e
> >> Author: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
> >> AuthorDate: Wed Sep 4 14:11:24 2019 -0700
> >> Commit: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> >> CommitDate: Fri Oct 4 17:30:19 2019 +0200
> >>
> >> of/platform: Pause/resume sync state during init and of_platform_populate()
> >>
> >> When all the top level devices are populated from DT during kernel
> >> init, the supplier devices could be added and probed before the
> >> consumer devices are added and linked to the suppliers. To avoid the
> >> sync_state() callback from being called prematurely, pause the
> >> sync_state() callbacks before populating the devices and resume them
> >> at late_initcall_sync().
> >>
> >> Similarly, when children devices are populated from a module using
> >> of_platform_populate(), there could be supplier-consumer dependencies
> >> between the children devices that are populated. To avoid the same
> >> problem with sync_state() being called prematurely, pause and resume
> >> sync_state() callbacks across of_platform_populate().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190904211126.47518-6-saravanak@google.com
> >> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> >>
> >> fc5a251d0f driver core: Add sync_state driver/bus callback
> >> 5e6669387e of/platform: Pause/resume sync state during init and of_platform_populate()
> >> 81b6b96475 Merge branch 'master' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux; tag 'dma-mapping-5.5' of git://git.infradead.org/users/hch/dma-mapping
> >> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
> >> | | fc5a251d0f | 5e6669387e | 81b6b96475 |
> >> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
> >> | boot_successes | 30 | 0 | 0 |
> >> | boot_failures | 1 | 11 | 22 |
> >> | Oops:#[##] | 1 | | |
> >> | EIP:unmap_vmas | 1 | | |
> >> | PANIC:double_fault | 1 | | |
> >> | Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Fatal_exception | 1 | | |
> >> | WARNING:at_drivers/base/core.c:#device_links_supplier_sync_state_resume | 0 | 11 | 22 |
> >> | EIP:device_links_supplier_sync_state_resume | 0 | 11 | 22 |
> >> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
> >>
> >> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> >> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> >>
> >> [ 3.186107] OF: /testcase-data/phandle-tests/consumer-b: #phandle-cells = 2 found -1
> >> [ 3.188595] platform testcase-data:testcase-device2: IRQ index 0 not found
> >> [ 3.191047] ### dt-test ### end of unittest - 199 passed, 0 failed
> >> [ 3.191932] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> [ 3.192571] Unmatched sync_state pause/resume!
> >> [ 3.192726] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1 at drivers/base/core.c:688 device_links_supplier_sync_state_resume+0x27/0xc0
> >> [ 3.195084] Modules linked in:
> >> [ 3.195494] CPU: 1 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G T 5.4.0-rc1-00005-g5e6669387e228 #1
> >> [ 3.196674] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1 04/01/2014
> >> [ 3.197693] EIP: device_links_supplier_sync_state_resume+0x27/0xc0
> >> [ 3.198680] Code: 00 00 00 3e 8d 74 26 00 57 56 31 d2 53 b8 a0 d0 d9 c1 e8 6c b6 38 00 a1 e4 d0 d9 c1 85 c0 75 13 68 84 ba c4 c1 e8 29 30 b1 ff <0f> 0b 58 eb 7f 8d 74 26 00 83 e8 01 85 c0 a3 e4 d0 d9 c1 75 6f 8b
> >> [ 3.201560] EAX: 00000022 EBX: 00000000 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
> >> [ 3.202466] ESI: 000001ab EDI: c02c7f80 EBP: c1e87d27 ESP: c02c7f20
> >> [ 3.203301] DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0000 SS: 0068 EFLAGS: 00010282
> >> [ 3.204258] CR0: 80050033 CR2: bfa1bf98 CR3: 01f28000 CR4: 00140690
> >> [ 3.205022] DR0: 00000000 DR1: 00000000 DR2: 00000000 DR3: 00000000
> >> [ 3.205919] DR6: fffe0ff0 DR7: 00000400
> >> [ 3.206529] Call Trace:
> >> [ 3.207011] ? of_platform_sync_state_init+0x13/0x16
> >> [ 3.207719] ? do_one_initcall+0xda/0x260
> >> [ 3.208247] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x110/0x197
> >> [ 3.208906] ? rest_init+0x120/0x120
> >> [ 3.209369] ? kernel_init+0xa/0x100
> >> [ 3.209775] ? ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24
> >> [ 3.210283] ---[ end trace 81d0f2d2ee65199b ]---
> >> [ 3.210955] ALSA device list:
> >
> > Rob/Frank,
> >
> > This seems to be an issue with the unit test code not properly
> > cleaning up the state after it's done.
> >
> > Specifically, unittest_data_add() setting up of_root on systems where
> > there's no device tree (of_root == NULL). It doesn't clean up of_root
> > after the tests are done. This affects the of_have_populated_dt() API
> > that in turn affects calls to
> > device_links_supplier_sync_state_pause/resume(). I think unittests
> > shouldn't affect the of_have_populated_dt() API.
> There are at least a couple of reasons why the unittest devicetree data
> needs to remain after the point where devicetree unittests currently
> complete. So cleaning up (removing the data) is not an option.
>
> I depend on the unittest devicetree entries still existing after the system
> boots and I can log into a shell for some validation of the final result of
> the devicetree data.

IMHO unittests shouldn't have a residual impact on the system after
they are done. So, I'll agree to disagree on this one.

> There is also a desire for the devicetree unittests to be able to be loaded
> as a module. That work is not yet scheduled, but I do not want to preclude
> the possibility. If unittests are loaded from a module then they will
> need some devicetree data to exist that is created in early boot. That
> data will be in the devicetree when of_platform_sync_state_init() is
> invoked.

On a normal system, FDT is parsed and of_root is set (or not set) very
early on during setup_arch() before any of the initcall levels are
run. The return value of of_have_populated_dt() isn't expected to
change across initcall levels. But because of the way the unittest is
written (the of_root is changed at late_initcall() level) the return
value of of_have_populated_dt() changes across initcall levels. I
think that's a real problem with the unittest -- it's breaking API
semantics.

of_have_populated_dt() is being used to check if DT is present in the
system and different things are done based on that. We can't have that
value change across initcall levels.

Couple of thoughts:
1. Don't run unit test if there is no live DT in the system?
2. If you don't want to do (1), then at least set up the unit test
data during setup_arch() instead of doing it at some initcall level?
3. Can you use overlays for the unit tests if they are loaded as a module?

> > I was looking into writing a unittest patch to fix this, but I don't
> > know enough about the FDT parsing code to make sure I don't leak any
> > memory or free stuff that's in use. I'm not sure I can simply set
> > of_root = NULL if it was NULL before the unittest started. Let me know
> > how I should proceed or if you plan to write up a patch for this.
>
> Based on the above, "clean up" of the unittest data is not the solution.
>
> I haven't looked at the mechanism in device_links_supplier_sync_state_resume()
> that leads to the WARN yet. But is does not seem reasonable for that code
> to be so sensitive to what valid data is in the devicetree that a WARN results.

Sure, I could easily fix it to work around this. But this seems to be
a genuine problem with the unittest setup IMO.

-Saravana

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-03 21:06    [W:0.049 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site