lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: ARM/gic-v4: deadlock occurred
From
Date
Hi Marc,

Appreciate your quick patch :) We'll test it and let you know the result.

Heyi


On 2019/5/5 18:38, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> [+ kvmarm]
>
> Hi Heyi,
>
> On Sun, 05 May 2019 03:26:18 +0100,
> Heyi Guo <guoheyi@huawei.com> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> We observed deadlocks after enabling GICv4 and PCI passthrough on
>> ARM64 virtual machines, when not pinning VCPU to physical CPU.
>>
>> We observed below warnings after enabling lockdep debug in kernel:
>>
>> [ 362.847021] =====================================================
>> [ 362.855643] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
>> [ 362.864840] 4.19.34+ #7 Tainted: G W
>> [ 362.872314] -----------------------------------------------------
>> [ 362.881034] CPU 0/KVM/51468 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
>> [ 362.890504] 00000000659c1dc9 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: fs_reclaim_acquire.part.22+0x0/0x48
>> [ 362.901413]
>> [ 362.901413] and this task is already holding:
>> [ 362.912976] 000000007318873f (&dev->event_map.vlpi_lock){....}, at: its_irq_set_vcpu_affinity+0x134/0x638
>> [ 362.928626] which would create a new lock dependency:
>> [ 362.936837] (&dev->event_map.vlpi_lock){....} -> (fs_reclaim){+.+.}
>> [ 362.946449]
>> [ 362.946449] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock:
>> [ 362.960877] (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}
>> [ 362.960880]
>> [ 362.960880] ... which became HARDIRQ-irq-safe at:
>> [ 362.981234] lock_acquire+0xf0/0x258
>> [ 362.988337] _raw_spin_lock+0x54/0x90
>> [ 362.995543] handle_fasteoi_irq+0x2c/0x198
>> [ 363.003205] generic_handle_irq+0x34/0x50
>> [ 363.010787] __handle_domain_irq+0x68/0xc0
>> [ 363.018500] gic_handle_irq+0xf4/0x1e0
>> [ 363.025913] el1_irq+0xc8/0x180
>> [ 363.032683] _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x40/0x60
>> [ 363.040512] finish_task_switch+0x98/0x258
>> [ 363.048254] __schedule+0x350/0xca8
>> [ 363.055359] schedule+0x40/0xa8
>> [ 363.062098] worker_thread+0xd8/0x410
>> [ 363.069340] kthread+0x134/0x138
>> [ 363.076070] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>> [ 363.083111]
>> [ 363.083111] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
>> [ 363.095213] (fs_reclaim){+.+.}
>> [ 363.095216]
>> [ 363.095216] ... which became HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe at:
>> [ 363.114527] ...
>> [ 363.114530] lock_acquire+0xf0/0x258
>> [ 363.126269] fs_reclaim_acquire.part.22+0x3c/0x48
>> [ 363.134206] fs_reclaim_acquire+0x2c/0x38
>> [ 363.141363] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x44/0x368
>> [ 363.148892] acpi_os_map_iomem+0x9c/0x208
>> [ 363.155934] acpi_os_map_memory+0x28/0x38
>> [ 363.162831] acpi_tb_acquire_table+0x58/0x8c
>> [ 363.170021] acpi_tb_validate_table+0x34/0x58
>> [ 363.177162] acpi_tb_get_table+0x4c/0x90
>> [ 363.183741] acpi_get_table+0x94/0xc4
>> [ 363.190020] find_acpi_cpu_topology_tag+0x54/0x240
>> [ 363.197404] find_acpi_cpu_topology_package+0x28/0x38
>> [ 363.204985] init_cpu_topology+0xdc/0x1e4
>> [ 363.211498] smp_prepare_cpus+0x2c/0x108
>> [ 363.217882] kernel_init_freeable+0x130/0x508
>> [ 363.224699] kernel_init+0x18/0x118
>> [ 363.230624] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
>> [ 363.236611]
>> [ 363.236611] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 363.236611]
>> [ 363.251604] Chain exists of:
>> [ 363.251604] &irq_desc_lock_class --> &dev->event_map.vlpi_lock --> fs_reclaim
>> [ 363.251604]
>> [ 363.270508] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>> [ 363.270508]
>> [ 363.282238] CPU0 CPU1
>> [ 363.289228] ---- ----
>> [ 363.296189] lock(fs_reclaim);
>> [ 363.301726] local_irq_disable();
>> [ 363.310122] lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
>> [ 363.319143] lock(&dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
>> [ 363.328617] <Interrupt>
>> [ 363.333713] lock(&irq_desc_lock_class);
>> [ 363.340414]
>> [ 363.340414] *** DEADLOCK ***
>> [ 363.340414]
>> [ 363.353682] 5 locks held by CPU 0/KVM/51468:
>> [ 363.360412] #0: 00000000eeb852a5 (&vdev->igate){+.+.}, at: vfio_pci_ioctl+0x2f8/0xed0
>> [ 363.370915] #1: 000000002ab491f7 (lock#9){+.+.}, at: irq_bypass_register_producer+0x6c/0x1d0
>> [ 363.382139] #2: 000000000d9fd5c6 (&its->its_lock){+.+.}, at: kvm_vgic_v4_set_forwarding+0xd0/0x188
>> [ 363.396625] #3: 00000000232bdc47 (&irq_desc_lock_class){-.-.}, at: __irq_get_desc_lock+0x60/0xa0
>> [ 363.408486] #4: 000000007318873f (&dev->event_map.vlpi_lock){....}, at: its_irq_set_vcpu_affinity+0x134/0x638
>>
>>
>> Then we found that irq_set_vcpu_affinity() in kernel/irq/manage.c
>> aquires an antomic context by irq_get_desc_lock() at the beginning,
>> but in its_irq_set_vcpu_affinity()
>> (drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c) we are still using mutext_lock,
>> kcalloc, kfree, etc, which we think should be forbidden in atomic
>> context.
>>
>> Though the issue is observed in 4.19.34, we don't find any related
>> fixes in the mainline yet.
> Thanks for the report. Given that you're the only users of GICv4,
> you're bound to find a number of these issues.
>
> Can you try the patch below and let me know whether it helps? This is
> the simplest thing I can think off to paper over the issue, but is
> isn't pretty, and I'm looking at possible alternatives (ideally, we'd
> be able to allocate the map outside of the irqdesc lock, but this
> requires some API change between KVM, the GICv4 layer and the ITS
> code).
>
> Note that I'm travelling for the next two weeks without access to my
> test rig, so I'm relying on you to test this stuff.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> index 7577755bdcf4..18aa04b6a9f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
> @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ struct event_lpi_map {
> u16 *col_map;
> irq_hw_number_t lpi_base;
> int nr_lpis;
> - struct mutex vlpi_lock;
> + raw_spinlock_t vlpi_lock;
> struct its_vm *vm;
> struct its_vlpi_map *vlpi_maps;
> int nr_vlpis;
> @@ -1263,13 +1263,13 @@ static int its_vlpi_map(struct irq_data *d, struct its_cmd_info *info)
> if (!info->map)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - mutex_lock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
>
> if (!its_dev->event_map.vm) {
> struct its_vlpi_map *maps;
>
> maps = kcalloc(its_dev->event_map.nr_lpis, sizeof(*maps),
> - GFP_KERNEL);
> + GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (!maps) {
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> goto out;
> @@ -1312,7 +1312,7 @@ static int its_vlpi_map(struct irq_data *d, struct its_cmd_info *info)
> }
>
> out:
> - mutex_unlock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -1322,7 +1322,7 @@ static int its_vlpi_get(struct irq_data *d, struct its_cmd_info *info)
> u32 event = its_get_event_id(d);
> int ret = 0;
>
> - mutex_lock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
>
> if (!its_dev->event_map.vm ||
> !its_dev->event_map.vlpi_maps[event].vm) {
> @@ -1334,7 +1334,7 @@ static int its_vlpi_get(struct irq_data *d, struct its_cmd_info *info)
> *info->map = its_dev->event_map.vlpi_maps[event];
>
> out:
> - mutex_unlock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -1344,7 +1344,7 @@ static int its_vlpi_unmap(struct irq_data *d)
> u32 event = its_get_event_id(d);
> int ret = 0;
>
> - mutex_lock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> + raw_spin_lock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
>
> if (!its_dev->event_map.vm || !irqd_is_forwarded_to_vcpu(d)) {
> ret = -EINVAL;
> @@ -1374,7 +1374,7 @@ static int its_vlpi_unmap(struct irq_data *d)
> }
>
> out:
> - mutex_unlock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&its_dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -2436,7 +2436,7 @@ static struct its_device *its_create_device(struct its_node *its, u32 dev_id,
> dev->event_map.col_map = col_map;
> dev->event_map.lpi_base = lpi_base;
> dev->event_map.nr_lpis = nr_lpis;
> - mutex_init(&dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> + raw_spin_lock_init(&dev->event_map.vlpi_lock);
> dev->device_id = dev_id;
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->entry);
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-05 13:08    [W:0.060 / U:18.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site