[nouveau] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected in linux-next

I've been seeing these warnings for a couple of weeks now. Any pointers on how to address this would be much appreciated. [ 57.207457] == [ 57.207470] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 57.207483] 5.11.0-rc7-next

Re: lockdep splat ("possible circular locking dependency detected") with PL011 on 5.8

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:17:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:38:41PM +0200, pet...@infradead.org wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c > > b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c > > index 8efd7c2a34fe..1717790ece2b 100644 > > ---

Re: lockdep splat ("possible circular locking dependency detected") with PL011 on 5.8

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:38:41PM +0200, pet...@infradead.org wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:13:13AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > Using magic-sysrq via a keyboard interrupt over the serial console results > > in > > the following lockdep splat with the PL011 UART driver on v5.8. I can > >

Re: lockdep splat ("possible circular locking dependency detected") with PL011 on 5.8

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:13:13AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi, > > Using magic-sysrq via a keyboard interrupt over the serial console results in > the following lockdep splat with the PL011 UART driver on v5.8. I can > reproduce > the issue under QEMU with arm64 defconfig + PROVE_LOCKING. >

lockdep splat ("possible circular locking dependency detected") with PL011 on 5.8

378] == [ 56.387391] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 56.387401] 5.8.0 #2 Not tainted [ 56.387411] -- [ 56.387421] swapper/0/0 is trying to acquire lock: [ 56.387467] b190db294ab0 (console_ow

Re: 3ba75830ce ("nfsd4: drc containerization"): [ 51.013875] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

51.013875] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 51.014378] 5.2.0-rc2 #1 Not tainted [ 51.014672] -- [ 51.015182] trinity-c2/886 is trying to acquire lock: [ 51.015593] 000

Re: [BUG] tty: n_gsm: possible circular locking dependency detected

On 19/09/2019 15.27, Martin Hundebøll wrote: But we haven't been able to reproduce locally. Scratch that. It's reliably reproduced by sending/saturating the uart with outgoing data. // Martin

[BUG] tty: n_gsm: possible circular locking dependency detected

] == [ 201.639473] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 201.645667] 4.19.22 #1 Not tainted [ 201.649078] -- [ 201.655270] kworker/u2:0/7 is trying to acquire lock: [ 201.660337] a66ff7b8

Re: b9ca5f8560 ("tty: pty: Fix race condition between .."): WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

44K > [ 15.393319] Run /init as init process > [ 15.477473] random: init: uninitialized urandom read (12 bytes read) > [ 15.558322] > [ 15.559003] == > [ 15.561203] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

Re: [linux next] tty/pty: possible circular locking dependency detected

Cc-ing Sahara On (03/29/19 16:35), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > 5.1.0-rc2-next-20190329 > > [8.168722] == > [8.168723] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > [8.168724] 5.1.0-rc2-next-201

[linux next] tty/pty: possible circular locking dependency detected

5.1.0-rc2-next-20190329 [8.168722] == [8.168723] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [8.168724] 5.1.0-rc2-next-20190329-dbg-00014-g4d25d68aaf88-dirty #3228 Not tainted [8.168725

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

Compiling kernel on an aarch64 server with the latest mainline (rc2) generated this, [ 910.263839] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 910.263841] 4.20.0-rc2+ #4 Tainted: GWL [ 910.263843] -- [ 910.263844

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

Compiling kernel on an aarch64 server with the latest mainline (rc2) generated this, [ 910.263839] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 910.263841] 4.20.0-rc2+ #4 Tainted: GWL [ 910.263843] -- [ 910.263844

Re: [LKP] d50d82faa0 [ 33.671845] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:43:36 -0800 Andrew Morton > wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:04 +0800 kernel test robot > > wrote: > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is > > > > >

Re: [LKP] d50d82faa0 [ 33.671845] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:43:36 -0800 Andrew Morton > wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:04 +0800 kernel test robot > > wrote: > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is > > > > >

Re: [LKP] d50d82faa0 [ 33.671845] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:43:36 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:04 +0800 kernel test robot > wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is > > > >

Re: [LKP] d50d82faa0 [ 33.671845] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:43:36 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:04 +0800 kernel test robot > wrote: > > > Greetings, > > > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is > > > >

Re: [LKP] d50d82faa0 [ 33.671845] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

+ > > [ 29.227068] random: get_random_bytes called from key_alloc+0x2b0/0x44d > with crng_init=1 > [ 32.046253] random: get_random_bytes called from > __ip_select_ident+0x45/0x93 with crng_init=1 > [ 33.592007] random: get_random_bytes called from key_alloc+0x2b0/0x44d > with crng_init=1 > [ 33.670288] > [

Re: [LKP] d50d82faa0 [ 33.671845] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

+ > > [ 29.227068] random: get_random_bytes called from key_alloc+0x2b0/0x44d > with crng_init=1 > [ 32.046253] random: get_random_bytes called from > __ip_select_ident+0x45/0x93 with crng_init=1 > [ 33.592007] random: get_random_bytes called from key_alloc+0x2b0/0x44d > with crng_init=1 > [ 33.670288] > [

Re: [LKP] 3f906ba236 [ 71.192813] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

] [ 57.651003] synth uevent: /module/pcmcia_core: unknown uevent action string [ 71.189062] [ 71.191953] == [ 71.192813] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 71.193664] 4.12.0-10480-g3f906ba #1 Not tainted [ 71.194355

Re: [LKP] 3f906ba236 [ 71.192813] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

] [ 57.651003] synth uevent: /module/pcmcia_core: unknown uevent action string [ 71.189062] [ 71.191953] == [ 71.192813] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 71.193664] 4.12.0-10480-g3f906ba #1 Not tainted [ 71.194355

Re: [LKP] 3f906ba236 [ 71.192813] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

> HI:3700] [ 57.651003] synth uevent: /module/pcmcia_core: unknown uevent > action string [ 71.189062] [ 71.191953] > == [ 71.192813] WARNING: > possible circular locking dependency detected [ 71.193664] &g

Re: [LKP] 3f906ba236 [ 71.192813] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

> HI:3700] [ 57.651003] synth uevent: /module/pcmcia_core: unknown uevent > action string [ 71.189062] [ 71.191953] > == [ 71.192813] WARNING: > possible circular locking dependency detected [ 71.193664] &g

Re: [v4.9-rt][report] stress-ng: possible circular locking dependency detected

On 2017-12-18 20:06:12 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:55:24 -0600 > Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I've tried to run stress-ng on TI am57xx-evm (SMP, 2 cpu) and caught 2 > > "INFO: p

Re: [v4.9-rt][report] stress-ng: possible circular locking dependency detected

On 2017-12-18 20:06:12 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:55:24 -0600 > Grygorii Strashko wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > I've tried to run stress-ng on TI am57xx-evm (SMP, 2 cpu) and caught 2 > > "INFO: possible circular locking depend

Re: [v4.9-rt][report] stress-ng: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:55:24 -0600 Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I've tried to run stress-ng on TI am57xx-evm (SMP, 2 cpu) and caught 2 > "INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected" > > Command 1 (log 1): > #

Re: [v4.9-rt][report] stress-ng: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:55:24 -0600 Grygorii Strashko wrote: > Hi All, > > I've tried to run stress-ng on TI am57xx-evm (SMP, 2 cpu) and caught 2 > "INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected" > > Command 1 (log 1): > ## stress-ng --class cpu --al

[v4.9-rt][report] stress-ng: possible circular locking dependency detected

Hi All, I've tried to run stress-ng on TI am57xx-evm (SMP, 2 cpu) and caught 2 "INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected" Command 1 (log 1): ## stress-ng --class cpu --all 0 -t 5m & stress-ng --class memory --all 0 --vm-bytes 90% -t 5m Command 2 (log 2): ## stress

[v4.9-rt][report] stress-ng: possible circular locking dependency detected

Hi All, I've tried to run stress-ng on TI am57xx-evm (SMP, 2 cpu) and caught 2 "INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected" Command 1 (log 1): ## stress-ng --class cpu --all 0 -t 5m & stress-ng --class memory --all 0 --vm-bytes 90% -t 5m Command 2 (log 2): ## stress

Re: 995d11c4c0 ("drm: rework delayed connector cleanup in .."): WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

ar_locking_dependency_detected | 82| 15 >> | >> | kernel_BUG_at_lib/list_debug.c| 0 | 15 >> | >> | invalid_opcode:#[##] | 0 | 15 >> | >> | RIP:__list_add_val

Re: 995d11c4c0 ("drm: rework delayed connector cleanup in .."): WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

syncing:Fatal_exception | 0 | 15 >> | >> +---+---++ >> >> [3.252870] CPU feature 'AVX registers' is not supported. >> [3.261404] AVX2 or AES-NI instruct

Re: 995d11c4c0 ("drm: rework delayed connector cleanup in .."): WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

>| > | Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Fatal_exception | 0 | 15 >| > +-----------+---++ > > [3.252870] CPU feature 'AVX registers' is not supported. > [3.261404] AVX2 or AES-NI instructi

Re: 995d11c4c0 ("drm: rework delayed connector cleanup in .."): WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

; +---+---++ > > [3.252870] CPU feature 'AVX registers' is not supported. > [ 3.261404] AVX2 or AES-NI instructions are not detected. > [3.262708] AVX2 instructions are no

Re: intel-dmar: possible circular locking dependency detected

Hey Jan, On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:19:15PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2017-09-27 15:21, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > On 2017-09-27 14:14, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> while I'm triggering this with a still out-of-tree module from the > >> Jailhouse project, the potential deadlock appears to me being

Re: intel-dmar: possible circular locking dependency detected

Hey Jan, On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:19:15PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2017-09-27 15:21, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > On 2017-09-27 14:14, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> while I'm triggering this with a still out-of-tree module from the > >> Jailhouse project, the potential deadlock appears to me being

Re: intel-dmar: possible circular locking dependency detected

gt;> to it. Please have a look: >> >> ========== >> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected >> 4.14.0-rc2-dbg+ #176 Tainted: G O >> -- >> jailhouse/6105 is trying to acqui

Re: intel-dmar: possible circular locking dependency detected

gt;> to it. Please have a look: >> >> ========== >> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected >> 4.14.0-rc2-dbg+ #176 Tainted: G O >> -- >> jailhouse/6105 is trying to acqui

Re: intel-dmar: possible circular locking dependency detected

=== > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 4.14.0-rc2-dbg+ #176 Tainted: G O > -- > jailhouse/6105 is trying to acquire lock: > dmar_pci_bus_notifier+0x4f/0xcb > > but task is already holding l

Re: intel-dmar: possible circular locking dependency detected

=== > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 4.14.0-rc2-dbg+ #176 Tainted: G O > -- > jailhouse/6105 is trying to acquire lock: > dmar_pci_bus_notifier+0x4f/0xcb > > but task is already holding l

intel-dmar: possible circular locking dependency detected

Hi, while I'm triggering this with a still out-of-tree module from the Jailhouse project, the potential deadlock appears to me being unrelated to it. Please have a look: == WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.14.0-rc2-dbg

intel-dmar: possible circular locking dependency detected

Hi, while I'm triggering this with a still out-of-tree module from the Jailhouse project, the potential deadlock appears to me being unrelated to it. Please have a look: == WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.14.0-rc2-dbg

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:24:13PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Arghh!!! > > > > > > > > > > And allowing us to

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:24:13PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Arghh!!! > > > > > > > > > > And allowing us to

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Arghh!!! > > > > > > > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but > > > > maybe slightly tricky)

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > Arghh!!! > > > > > > > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but > > > > maybe slightly tricky)

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Arghh!!! > > > > > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but > > > maybe slightly tricky) won't solve that, because we're already holding > > > the

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Arghh!!! > > > > > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but > > > maybe slightly tricky) won't solve that, because we're already holding > > > the

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Arghh!!! > > > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but > > maybe slightly tricky) won't solve that, because we're already holding > > the hotplug_lock during PREPARE. > > There are two ways to

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Arghh!!! > > > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but > > maybe slightly tricky) won't solve that, because we're already holding > > the hotplug_lock during PREPARE. > > There are two ways to

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context > > > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at:

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context > > > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at:

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context > > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF + > > HOTPLUG_OFFSET = -33. > > > > That's

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context > > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF + > > HOTPLUG_OFFSET = -33. > > > > That's

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF + > HOTPLUG_OFFSET = -33. > > That's smaller than ERROR and thus perf_event_enable() no-ops on events > for offline

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF + > HOTPLUG_OFFSET = -33. > > That's smaller than ERROR and thus perf_event_enable() no-ops on events > for offline

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

Hello Peter, On (08/30/17 10:47), Peter Zijlstra wrote: [..] > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it > > harder to find and fix. > > > > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive,

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

Hello Peter, On (08/30/17 10:47), Peter Zijlstra wrote: [..] > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it > > harder to find and fix. > > > > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive,

RE: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

m; ax...@kernel.dk; linux- > s...@vger.kernel.org; s...@canb.auug.org.au; linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; > kernel-t...@lge.com > Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux- > next: Tree for Aug 22] > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra

RE: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

m; ax...@kernel.dk; linux- > s...@vger.kernel.org; s...@canb.auug.org.au; linux-n...@vger.kernel.org; > kernel-t...@lge.com > Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux- > next: Tree for Aug 22] > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it > harder to find and fix. > > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I've not yet > checked if crossrelease does too much of that. Aah, we do

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it > harder to find and fix. > > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I've not yet > checked if crossrelease does too much of that. Aah, we do

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:15:11PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Hi, > > On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote: > [..] > > > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim > > > is irritatingly slow) > > > > To Ingo, > > > > I cannot decide if we have to roll back

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:15:11PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Hi, > > On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote: > [..] > > > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim > > > is irritatingly slow) > > > > To Ingo, > > > > I cannot decide if we have to roll back

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

Hi, On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] > > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim > > is irritatingly slow) > > To Ingo, > > I cannot decide if we have to roll back CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE > dependency on CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING in Kconfig. With them

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

Hi, On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] > > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim > > is irritatingly slow) > > To Ingo, > > I cannot decide if we have to roll back CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE > dependency on CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING in Kconfig. With them

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So I have a patch _somewhere_ that preserves the event<->cpu relation > > across hotplug and disable/enable would be sufficient. If you want I can > > try and dig that out and make it

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So I have a patch _somewhere_ that preserves the event<->cpu relation > > across hotplug and disable/enable would be sufficient. If you want I can > > try and dig that out and make it

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:20:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Byungchul, a quick question. Hello Sergey, > have you measured the performance impact? somehow my linux-next is Yeah, it might have performance impact inevitably. > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g.

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:20:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Byungchul, a quick question. Hello Sergey, > have you measured the performance impact? somehow my linux-next is Yeah, it might have performance impact inevitably. > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g.

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] > > Byungchul, did you add the crosslock checks to lockdep? Can you have a look > > at > > the above report? That report namely doesn't make sense to me. > > The report is talking about the following lockup: > > A work in a worker

Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]

On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] > > Byungchul, did you add the crosslock checks to lockdep? Can you have a look > > at > > the above report? That report namely doesn't make sense to me. > > The report is talking about the following lockup: > > A work in a worker

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:40:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > One solution I'm looking into right now is to reverse the lock order and > > actually make the hotplug code do: > > > > watchdog_lock(); > > cpu_write_lock(); > > > >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:40:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > One solution I'm looking into right now is to reverse the lock order and > > actually make the hotplug code do: > > > > watchdog_lock(); > > cpu_write_lock(); > > > >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:40:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > One solution I'm looking into right now is to reverse the lock order and > actually make the hotplug code do: > >watchdog_lock(); >cpu_write_lock(); > > >cpu_write_unlock(); >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:40:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > One solution I'm looking into right now is to reverse the lock order and > actually make the hotplug code do: > >watchdog_lock(); >cpu_write_lock(); > > >cpu_write_unlock(); >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > > == > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > 4.13.

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > > == > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > 4.13.

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > What's worse, there's also: > > cpus_write_lock() > ... > takedown_cpu() > smpboot_park_threads() > smpboot_park_thread() > kthread_park() > ->park() := watchdog_disable() >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > What's worse, there's also: > > cpus_write_lock() > ... > takedown_cpu() > smpboot_park_threads() > smpboot_park_thread() > kthread_park() > ->park() := watchdog_disable() >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

t; tglx says I have something for ya :-) > > > > > > ========== > > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > > 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted > > >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

t; tglx says I have something for ya :-) > > > > > > ========== > > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > > 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted > > >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:58:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > Hey, > > > > tglx says I have something for ya :-) > > > > == >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:58:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > Hey, > > > > tglx says I have something for ya :-) > > > > == >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Hey, > > tglx says I have something for ya :-) > > == > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 4.13.

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > Hey, > > tglx says I have something for ya :-) > > == > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 4.13.

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > | == > | WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > | 4.13.0-rc6-00758-gd80d4177391

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > | == > | WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > | 4.13.0-rc6-00758-gd80d4177391

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > > == > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > 4.13.

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > > == > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > 4.13.

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > Hey, Hi Borislav, > tglx says I have something for ya :-) :) > == > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 4.13.0-rc6+

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > Hey, Hi Borislav, > tglx says I have something for ya :-) :) > == > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 4.13.0-rc6+

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > wrote: > > We hold the sparse_irq_lock lock while waiting for the completion in the > > CPU-down case and in the CPU-up case we acquire the sparse_irq_lock lock > >

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > wrote: > > We hold the sparse_irq_lock lock while waiting for the completion in the > > CPU-down case and in the CPU-up case we acquire the sparse_irq_lock lock > > while the other CPU is

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> wrote: > On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: >> == >> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected >>

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: >> == >> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected >> 4.13.

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > == > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted > -- While looking at this, I s

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote: > == > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted > -- While looking at this, I s

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

.config -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. # # Automatically generated file; DO NOT EDIT. # Linux/x86 4.13.0-rc6 Kernel Configuration # CONFIG_64BIT=y CONFIG_X86_64=y CONFIG_X86=y CONFIG_INSTRUCTION_DECODER=y

Re: WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

.config -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply. # # Automatically generated file; DO NOT EDIT. # Linux/x86 4.13.0-rc6 Kernel Configuration # CONFIG_64BIT=y CONFIG_X86_64=y CONFIG_X86=y CONFIG_INSTRUCTION_DECODER=y

WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected

Hey, tglx says I have something for ya :-) == WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted -- watchdog/3/27 is trying to acquire lock

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >