On 11/12/25 3:16 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 08:25:59AM -0600, Narayana Murty N wrote:The recent commit 1010b4c012b0 ("powerpc/eeh: Make EEH driver device hotplug safe") restructured the EEH driver to improve synchronization with the PCI hotplug layer. However, it inadvertently moved pci_lock_rescan_remove() outside its intended scope in eeh_handle_normal_event(), leading to broken PCI error reporting and improper EEH event triggering. Specifically, eeh_handle_normal_event() acquired pci_lock_rescan_remove() before calling eeh_pe_bus_get(), but eeh_pe_bus_get() itself attempts to acquire the same lock internally, causing nested locking and disrupting normal EEH event handling paths. This patch adds a boolean parameter do_lock to _eeh_pe_bus_get(), with two public wrappers: eeh_pe_bus_get() with locking enabled. eeh_pe_bus_get_nolock() that skips locking. Callers that already hold pci_lock_rescan_remove() now use eeh_pe_bus_get_nolock() to avoid recursive lock acquisition. Additionally, pci_lock_rescan_remove() calls are restored to the correct position—after eeh_pe_bus_get() and immediately before iterating affected PEs and devices. This ensures EEH-triggered PCI removes occur under proper bus rescan locking without recursive lock contention. The eeh_pe_loc_get() function has been split into two functions: eeh_pe_loc_get(struct eeh_pe *pe) which retrieves the loc for given PE. eeh_pe_loc_get_bus(struct pci_bus *bus) which retrieves the location code for given bus. This resolves lockdep warnings such as: <snip> [ 84.964298] [ T928] ============================================ [ 84.964304] [ T928] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected [ 84.964311] [ T928] 6.18.0-rc3 #51 Not tainted [ 84.964315] [ T928] -------------------------------------------- [ 84.964320] [ T928] eehd/928 is trying to acquire lock: [ 84.964324] [ T928] c000000003b29d58 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964342] [ T928] but task is already holding lock: [ 84.964347] [ T928] c000000003b29d58 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964357] [ T928] other info that might help us debug this: [ 84.964363] [ T928] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 84.964367] [ T928] CPU0 [ 84.964370] [ T928] ---- [ 84.964373] [ T928] lock(pci_rescan_remove_lock); [ 84.964378] [ T928] lock(pci_rescan_remove_lock); [ 84.964383] [ T928] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 84.964388] [ T928] May be due to missing lock nesting notation [ 84.964393] [ T928] 1 lock held by eehd/928: [ 84.964397] [ T928] #0: c000000003b29d58 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964408] [ T928] stack backtrace: [ 84.964414] [ T928] CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 928 Comm: eehd Not tainted 6.18.0-rc3 #51 VOLUNTARY [ 84.964417] [ T928] Hardware name: IBM,9080-HEX POWER10 (architected) 0x800200 0xf000006 of:IBM,FW1060.00 (NH1060_022) hv:phyp pSeries [ 84.964419] [ T928] Call Trace: [ 84.964420] [ T928] [c0000011a7157990] [c000000001705de4] dump_stack_lvl+0xc8/0x130 (unreliable) [ 84.964424] [ T928] [c0000011a71579d0] [c0000000002f66e0] print_deadlock_bug+0x430/0x440 [ 84.964428] [ T928] [c0000011a7157a70] [c0000000002fd0c0] __lock_acquire+0x1530/0x2d80 [ 84.964431] [ T928] [c0000011a7157ba0] [c0000000002fea54] lock_acquire+0x144/0x410 [ 84.964433] [ T928] [c0000011a7157cb0] [c0000011a7157cb0] __mutex_lock+0xf4/0x1050 [ 84.964436] [ T928] [c0000011a7157e00] [c000000000de21d8] pci_lock_rescan_remove+0x28/0x40 [ 84.964439] [ T928] [c0000011a7157e20] [c00000000004ed98] eeh_pe_bus_get+0x48/0xc0 [ 84.964442] [ T928] [c0000011a7157e50] [c000000000050434] eeh_handle_normal_event+0x64/0xa60 [ 84.964446] [ T928] [c0000011a7157f30] [c000000000051de8] eeh_event_handler+0xf8/0x190 [ 84.964450] [ T928] [c0000011a7157f90] [c0000000002747ac] kthread+0x16c/0x180 [ 84.964453] [ T928] [c0000011a7157fe0] [c00000000000ded8] start_kernel_thread+0x14/0x18I have no comment on the patch itself, but the timestamps above aren't relevant and could be removed. Maybe also the "T928" part. Bjorn
Thank you for your suggestion, I will cleanup the commit message Narayana Murty
