Ps4 5.1.0 #3

Razor246 · 2019-05-12T16:55:33Z

No description provided.

vfio_dev_present() which is the condition to wait_event_interruptible_timeout(), will call vfio_group_get_device and try to acquire the mutex group->device_lock. wait_event_interruptible_timeout() will set the state of the current task to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, before doing the condition check. This means that we will try to acquire the mutex while already in a sleeping state. The scheduler warns us by giving the following warning: [ 4050.264464] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 4050.264508] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set at [<00000000b33c00e2>] prepare_to_wait_event+0x14a/0x188 [ 4050.264529] WARNING: CPU: 12 PID: 35924 at kernel/sched/core.c:6112 __might_sleep+0x76/0x90 .... 4050.264756] Call Trace: [ 4050.264765] ([<000000000017bbaa>] __might_sleep+0x72/0x90) [ 4050.264774] [<0000000000b97edc>] __mutex_lock+0x44/0x8c0 [ 4050.264782] [<0000000000b9878a>] mutex_lock_nested+0x32/0x40 [ 4050.264793] [<000003ff800d7abe>] vfio_group_get_device+0x36/0xa8 [vfio] [ 4050.264803] [<000003ff800d87c0>] vfio_del_group_dev+0x238/0x378 [vfio] [ 4050.264813] [<000003ff8015f67c>] mdev_remove+0x3c/0x68 [mdev] [ 4050.264825] [<00000000008e01b0>] device_release_driver_internal+0x168/0x268 [ 4050.264834] [<00000000008de692>] bus_remove_device+0x162/0x190 [ 4050.264843] [<00000000008daf42>] device_del+0x1e2/0x368 [ 4050.264851] [<00000000008db12c>] device_unregister+0x64/0x88 [ 4050.264862] [<000003ff8015ed84>] mdev_device_remove+0xec/0x130 [mdev] [ 4050.264872] [<000003ff8015f074>] remove_store+0x6c/0xa8 [mdev] [ 4050.264881] [<000000000046f494>] kernfs_fop_write+0x14c/0x1f8 [ 4050.264890] [<00000000003c1530>] __vfs_write+0x38/0x1a8 [ 4050.264899] [<00000000003c187c>] vfs_write+0xb4/0x198 [ 4050.264908] [<00000000003c1af2>] ksys_write+0x5a/0xb0 [ 4050.264916] [<0000000000b9e270>] system_call+0xdc/0x2d8 [ 4050.264925] 4 locks held by sh/35924: [ 4050.264933] #0: 000000001ef90325 (sb_writers#4){.+.+}, at: vfs_write+0x9e/0x198 [ 4050.264948] #1: 000000005c1ab0b3 (&of->mutex){+.+.}, at: kernfs_fop_write+0x1cc/0x1f8 [ 4050.264963] #2: 0000000034831ab8 (kn->count#297){++++}, at: kernfs_remove_self+0x12e/0x150 [ 4050.264979] #3: 00000000e152484f (&dev->mutex){....}, at: device_release_driver_internal+0x5c/0x268 [ 4050.264993] Last Breaking-Event-Address: [ 4050.265002] [<000000000017bbaa>] __might_sleep+0x72/0x90 [ 4050.265010] irq event stamp: 7039 [ 4050.265020] hardirqs last enabled at (7047): [<00000000001cee7a>] console_unlock+0x6d2/0x740 [ 4050.265029] hardirqs last disabled at (7054): [<00000000001ce87e>] console_unlock+0xd6/0x740 [ 4050.265040] softirqs last enabled at (6416): [<0000000000b8fe26>] __udelay+0xb6/0x100 [ 4050.265049] softirqs last disabled at (6415): [<0000000000b8fe06>] __udelay+0x96/0x100 [ 4050.265057] ---[ end trace d04a07d39d99a9f9 ]--- Let's fix this as described in the article https://lwn.net/Articles/628628/. Signed-off-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com> [remove now redundant vfio_dev_present()] Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>

In free_percpu() we sometimes call pcpu_schedule_balance_work() to queue a work item (which does a wakeup) while holding pcpu_lock. This creates an unnecessary lock dependency between pcpu_lock and the scheduler's pi_lock. There are other places where we call pcpu_schedule_balance_work() without hold pcpu_lock, and this case doesn't need to be different. Moving the call outside the lock prevents the following lockdep splat when running tools/testing/selftests/bpf/{test_maps,test_progs} in sequence with lockdep enabled: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.1.0-dbg-DEV #1 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ kworker/23:255/18872 is trying to acquire lock: 000000000bc79290 (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: __queue_work+0xb2/0x520 but task is already holding lock: 00000000e3e7a6aa (pcpu_lock){..-.}, at: free_percpu+0x36/0x260 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #4 (pcpu_lock){..-.}: lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x50 pcpu_alloc+0xfa/0x780 __alloc_percpu_gfp+0x12/0x20 alloc_htab_elem+0x184/0x2b0 __htab_percpu_map_update_elem+0x252/0x290 bpf_percpu_hash_update+0x7c/0x130 __do_sys_bpf+0x1912/0x1be0 __x64_sys_bpf+0x1a/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x59/0x400 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe -> #3 (&htab->buckets[i].lock){....}: lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x50 htab_map_update_elem+0x1af/0x3a0 -> #2 (&rq->lock){-.-.}: lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180 _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 task_fork_fair+0x37/0x160 sched_fork+0x211/0x310 copy_process.part.43+0x7b1/0x2160 _do_fork+0xda/0x6b0 kernel_thread+0x29/0x30 rest_init+0x22/0x260 arch_call_rest_init+0xe/0x10 start_kernel+0x4fd/0x520 x86_64_start_reservations+0x24/0x26 x86_64_start_kernel+0x6f/0x72 secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 -> #1 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}: lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180 _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3a/0x50 try_to_wake_up+0x41/0x600 wake_up_process+0x15/0x20 create_worker+0x16b/0x1e0 workqueue_init+0x279/0x2ee kernel_init_freeable+0xf7/0x288 kernel_init+0xf/0x180 ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30 -> #0 (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){-.-.}: __lock_acquire+0x101f/0x12a0 lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180 _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 __queue_work+0xb2/0x520 queue_work_on+0x38/0x80 free_percpu+0x221/0x260 pcpu_freelist_destroy+0x11/0x20 stack_map_free+0x2a/0x40 bpf_map_free_deferred+0x3c/0x50 process_one_work+0x1f7/0x580 worker_thread+0x54/0x410 kthread+0x10f/0x150 ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &(&pool->lock)->rlock --> &htab->buckets[i].lock --> pcpu_lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(pcpu_lock); lock(&htab->buckets[i].lock); lock(pcpu_lock); lock(&(&pool->lock)->rlock); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by kworker/23:255/18872: #0: 00000000b36a6e16 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x17a/0x580 #1: 00000000dfd966f0 ((work_completion)(&map->work)){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x17a/0x580 #2: 00000000e3e7a6aa (pcpu_lock){..-.}, at: free_percpu+0x36/0x260 stack backtrace: CPU: 23 PID: 18872 Comm: kworker/23:255 Not tainted 5.1.0-dbg-DEV #1 Hardware name: ... Workqueue: events bpf_map_free_deferred Call Trace: dump_stack+0x67/0x95 print_circular_bug.isra.38+0x1c6/0x220 check_prev_add.constprop.50+0x9f6/0xd20 __lock_acquire+0x101f/0x12a0 lock_acquire+0x9e/0x180 _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 __queue_work+0xb2/0x520 queue_work_on+0x38/0x80 free_percpu+0x221/0x260 pcpu_freelist_destroy+0x11/0x20 stack_map_free+0x2a/0x40 bpf_map_free_deferred+0x3c/0x50 process_one_work+0x1f7/0x580 worker_thread+0x54/0x410 kthread+0x10f/0x150 ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30 Signed-off-by: John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@google.com> Signed-off-by: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>

Patch series "lib/sort & lib/list_sort: faster and smaller", v2. Because CONFIG_RETPOLINE has made indirect calls much more expensive, I thought I'd try to reduce the number made by the library sort functions. The first three patches apply to lib/sort.c. Patch #1 is a simple optimization. The built-in swap has special cases for aligned 4- and 8-byte objects. But those are almost never used; most calls to sort() work on larger structures, which fall back to the byte-at-a-time loop. This generalizes them to aligned *multiples* of 4 and 8 bytes. (If nothing else, it saves an awful lot of energy by not thrashing the store buffers as much.) Patch #2 grabs a juicy piece of low-hanging fruit. I agree that nice simple solid heapsort is preferable to more complex algorithms (sorry, Andrey), but it's possible to implement heapsort with far fewer comparisons (50% asymptotically, 25-40% reduction for realistic sizes) than the way it's been done up to now. And with some care, the code ends up smaller, as well. This is the "big win" patch. Patch #3 adds the same sort of indirect call bypass that has been added to the net code of late. The great majority of the callers use the builtin swap functions, so replace the indirect call to sort_func with a (highly preditable) series of if() statements. Rather surprisingly, this decreased code size, as the swap functions were inlined and their prologue & epilogue code eliminated. lib/list_sort.c is a bit trickier, as merge sort is already close to optimal, and we don't want to introduce triumphs of theory over practicality like the Ford-Johnson merge-insertion sort. Patch #4, without changing the algorithm, chops 32% off the code size and removes the part[MAX_LIST_LENGTH+1] pointer array (and the corresponding upper limit on efficiently sortable input size). Patch #5 improves the algorithm. The previous code is already optimal for power-of-two (or slightly smaller) size inputs, but when the input size is just over a power of 2, there's a very unbalanced final merge. There are, in the literature, several algorithms which solve this, but they all depend on the "breadth-first" merge order which was replaced by commit 835cc0c with a more cache-friendly "depth-first" order. Some hard thinking came up with a depth-first algorithm which defers merges as little as possible while avoiding bad merges. This saves 0.2*n compares, averaged over all sizes. The code size increase is minimal (64 bytes on x86-64, reducing the net savings to 26%), but the comments expanded significantly to document the clever algorithm. TESTING NOTES: I have some ugly user-space benchmarking code which I used for testing before moving this code into the kernel. Shout if you want a copy. I'm running this code right now, with CONFIG_TEST_SORT and CONFIG_TEST_LIST_SORT, but I confess I haven't rebooted since the last round of minor edits to quell checkpatch. I figure there will be at least one round of comments and final testing. This patch (of 5): Rather than having special-case swap functions for 4- and 8-byte objects, special-case aligned multiples of 4 or 8 bytes. This speeds up most users of sort() by avoiding fallback to the byte copy loop. Despite what ca96ab8 ("lib/sort: Add 64 bit swap function") claims, very few users of sort() sort pointers (or pointer-sized objects); most sort structures containing at least two words. (E.g. drivers/acpi/fan.c:acpi_fan_get_fps() sorts an array of 40-byte struct acpi_fan_fps.) The functions also got renamed to reflect the fact that they support multiple words. In the great tradition of bikeshedding, the names were by far the most contentious issue during review of this patch series. x86-64 code size 872 -> 886 bytes (+14) With feedback from Andy Shevchenko, Rasmus Villemoes and Geert Uytterhoeven. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/f24f932df3a7fa1973c1084154f1cea596bcf341.1552704200.git.lkml@sdf.org Signed-off-by: George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org> Acked-by: Andrey Abramov <st5pub@yandex.ru> Acked-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@siemens.com> Cc: Don Mullis <don.mullis@gmail.com> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Razor246 added 4 commits May 12, 2019 17:21

Update radeon_asic.c

59e7fe4

Update radeon_audio.c

c3ecbcb

Update drm_irq.c

257df46

Update drm_irq.c

b3b4caa

Razor246 merged commit b64379e into master May 12, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Ps4 5.1.0 #3

Ps4 5.1.0 #3

Razor246 commented May 12, 2019

Ps4 5.1.0 #3

Ps4 5.1.0 #3

Conversation

Razor246 commented May 12, 2019