Hi Jean,
> On Jan 14, 2015, at 15:49 , Jean Delvare <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Wolfram, Pantelis,
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:29:57 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 07:00:50PM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>> Waiting for the device release method to be called when
>>> going through i2c_del_adapter is wrong and leads to deadlock
>>> when removing an i2c mux device.
>>
>> Adding Jean to the list, maybe he knows more details from the past.
>>
>>> For instance when using the OF i2c mux unitest removal we get this.
>
> I can't parse the sentence above, sorry. What is "unitest”?
>
The DT overlay patchset contains a number of OF unitests for its features.
One of the new tests is performing a runtime insertion and removal of an i2c
mux containing
an i2c device on one of the channels.
When removing the mux device we get a deadlock.
>>> [<c055dfdc>] (__schedule) from [<c0561b74>] (schedule_timeout+0x18/0x198)
>>> [<c0561b74>] (schedule_timeout) from [<c055ee74>]
>>> (wait_for_common+0xf8/0x138)
>>> [<c055ee74>] (wait_for_common) from [<c03f724c>]
>>> (i2c_del_adapter+0x174/0x1cc)
>>> [<c03f724c>] (i2c_del_adapter) from [<c03f8480>]
>>> (i2c_del_mux_adapter+0x48/0x60)
>>> [<c03f8480>] (i2c_del_mux_adapter) from [<c046cf00>]
>>> (selftest_i2c_mux_remove+0x28/0x34)
>>> [<c046cf00>] (selftest_i2c_mux_remove) from [<c03f5234>]
>>> (i2c_device_remove+0x34/0x70)
>>> [<c03f5234>] (i2c_device_remove) from [<c03322ec>]
>>> (__device_release_driver+0x7c/0xc0)
>>> [<c03322ec>] (__device_release_driver) from [<c0332968>]
>>> (driver_detach+0x8c/0xb4)
>>> [<c0332968>] (driver_detach) from [<c0332088>] (bus_remove_driver+0x64/0x8c)
>>> [<c0332088>] (bus_remove_driver) from [<c07f1858>]
>>> (of_selftest+0x1f84/0x20f0)
>>> [<c07f1858>] (of_selftest) from [<c0008b04>] (do_one_initcall+0x104/0x1b4)
>>> [<c0008b04>] (do_one_initcall) from [<c07c4d9c>]
>>> (kernel_init_freeable+0x110/0x1d8)
>>> [<c07c4d9c>] (kernel_init_freeable) from [<c05591ec>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xe4)
>>> [<c05591ec>] (kernel_init) from [<c000deb8>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x3c)
>>> 2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
>>> #0: (&dev->mutex){......}, at: [<c0332944>] driver_detach+0x68/0xb4
>>> #1: (&dev->mutex){......}, at: [<c0332954>] driver_detach+0x78/0xb4
>>> Kernel panic - not syncing: hung_task: blocked tasks
>>> CPU: 0 PID: 16 Comm: khungtaskd Not tainted 3.19.0-rc4-00022-g261647c #443
>>> Hardware name: Generic AM33XX (Flattened Device Tree)
>>> [<c00140a8>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c00110dc>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
>>> [<c00110dc>] (show_stack) from [<c055c3ac>] (dump_stack+0x70/0x8c)
>>> [<c055c3ac>] (dump_stack) from [<c055ad10>] (panic+0x88/0x1f0)
>>> [<c055ad10>] (panic) from [<c00adef8>] (watchdog+0x2d4/0x350)
>>> [<c00adef8>] (watchdog) from [<c004e984>] (kthread+0xd8/0xec)
>>> [<c004e984>] (kthread) from [<c000deb8>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x3c)
>>>
>>> The device release method is never called and we hang waiting for it.
>>>
>>> This patch is marked as an [RFC] since the original code seems to
>>> really want to protect against a race from sysfs accessors, which
>>> I don't see how it could be a problem.
>
> The code is not from me, it's from Greg KH. It was written in August
> 2003 when Greg converted the i2c subsystem to somewhat fit into the
> (then) new device driver model. So that was a long time ago and it is
> possible that this is no longer necessary. FWIW I can't see anything
> similar in other subsystems.
>
> In fact I'm not sure what purpose the completion serves exactly. I
> expected it to delay the i2c adapter removal until no sysfs user of it
> was left (as the comment suggests.) However I just tested unloading an
> i2c bus driver while its adapter's new_device attribute was opened and
> rmmod returned immediately. So it doesn't look like accessing sysfs
> attributes actually takes a reference to the underlying i2c_adapter.
>
That’s what got me stumped too. I haven’t seen something like this before.
> That being said, nobody complained about this in 11 years, so I would
> be surprised if it was plain wrong. I'd rather question the test code.
> Where is it?
>
No-one has apparently tested removing an i2c mux device on a running system
before.
It’s in a new patchset I posted earlier.
Search for "of: unitest: Add I2C overlay unit tests.”
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg57577.html
> --
> Jean Delvare
> SUSE L3 Support
Regards
— Pantelis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
