Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: try to resume policies which failed on last resume

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Thu Jan 02 2014 - 19:27:12 EST

Next message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: [PATCH][tentative] PCI / ACPI: Rework PCI host bridge removal to avoid sysfs warnings"
Previous message: Luigi Semenzato: "Re: [PATCH] Input: cros_ec_keyb - avoid variable-length arrays on stack"
In reply to: BjÃrn Mork: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: try to resume policies which failed on last resume"
Next in thread: BjÃrn Mork: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: try to resume policies which failed on last resume"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thursday, January 02, 2014 01:15:10 PM BjÃrn Mork wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 07:11:00 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> __cpufreq_add_dev() can fail sometimes while we are resuming our system.
> >> Currently we are clearing all sysfs nodes for cpufreq's failed policy as that
> >> could make userspace unstable. But if we suspend/resume again, we should atleast
> >> try to bring back those policies.
> >>
> >> This patch fixes this issue by clearing fallback data on failure and trying to
> >> allocate a new struct cpufreq_policy on second resume.
> >>
> >> Reported-and-tested-by: BjÃrn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Well, while I appreciate the work done here, I don't like the changelog,
> > I don't really like the way the code is written and I don't like the comments.
> > Sorry about that.
> >
> > Bjorn, can you please test the patch below instead along with the [2/2]
> > from this series (on top of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq)?
>
> I tested this series with your modified 1/2 today, but on top of a
> current mainline (commit 9a0bb2966ef) instead of linux-pm.git/pm-cpufreq.
> Shouldn't make much difference since Linus already has pulled your
> 'pm+acpi-3.13-rc6' tag, which included that pm-cpufreq branch.
>
> This series fixes the reported bug for me.
>
>
> But I observed this, most likely unrelated, splat during the test:
>
> ACPI Exception: AE_BAD_PARAMETER, Returned by Handler for [EmbeddedControl] (20131115/evregion-282)
> ACPI Error: Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.PCI0.LPC_.EC__.LPMD] (Node ffff880232499c18), AE_BAD_PARAMETER (20131115/psparse-536)
> ACPI Error: Method parse/execution failed [\_PR_.CPU0._PPC] (Node ffff8802326f93d0), AE_BAD_PARAMETER (20131115/psparse-536)
> ACPI Error: Method parse/execution failed [\_PR_.CPU1._PPC] (Node ffff8802326f9268), AE_BAD_PARAMETER (20131115/psparse-536)
> ACPI Exception: AE_BAD_PARAMETER, Evaluating _PPC (20131115/processor_perflib-140)
>
> ======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 3.13.0-rc6+ #181 Not tainted
> -------------------------------------------------------
> s2disk/5651 is trying to acquire lock:
> (s_active#170){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff8118b9d7>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x28/0x46
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81039ff5>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x28/0x50
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}:
> [<ffffffff81075027>] lock_acquire+0xfb/0x144
> [<ffffffff8139d4d2>] mutex_lock_nested+0x6c/0x397
> [<ffffffff81039f4a>] get_online_cpus+0x3c/0x50
> [<ffffffff812a6974>] store+0x20/0xad
> [<ffffffff8118a9a1>] sysfs_write_file+0x138/0x18b
> [<ffffffff8112a428>] vfs_write+0x9c/0x102
> [<ffffffff8112a716>] SyS_write+0x50/0x85
> [<ffffffff813a57a2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> -> #0 (s_active#170){++++.+}:
> [<ffffffff81074760>] __lock_acquire+0xae3/0xe68
> [<ffffffff81075027>] lock_acquire+0xfb/0x144
> [<ffffffff8118b027>] sysfs_deactivate+0xa5/0x108
> [<ffffffff8118b9d7>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x28/0x46
> [<ffffffff8118bd3f>] sysfs_remove+0x2a/0x31
> [<ffffffff8118be2f>] sysfs_remove_dir+0x66/0x6b
> [<ffffffff811d5d11>] kobject_del+0x18/0x42
> [<ffffffff811d5e1c>] kobject_cleanup+0xe1/0x14f
> [<ffffffff811d5ede>] kobject_put+0x45/0x49
> [<ffffffff812a6e85>] cpufreq_policy_put_kobj+0x37/0x83
> [<ffffffff812a8bab>] __cpufreq_add_dev.isra.18+0x75e/0x78c
> [<ffffffff812a8c39>] cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x53/0x88
> [<ffffffff813a314c>] notifier_call_chain+0x67/0x92
> [<ffffffff8105bce4>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x9/0xb
> [<ffffffff81039e7c>] __cpu_notify+0x1b/0x32
> [<ffffffff81039ea1>] cpu_notify+0xe/0x10
> [<ffffffff8103a12b>] _cpu_up+0xf1/0x124
> [<ffffffff8138ee7d>] enable_nonboot_cpus+0x52/0xbf
> [<ffffffff8107a2a3>] hibernation_snapshot+0x1be/0x2ed
> [<ffffffff8107eb84>] snapshot_ioctl+0x1e5/0x431
> [<ffffffff81139080>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x45e/0x4a8
> [<ffffffff8113911c>] SyS_ioctl+0x52/0x82
> [<ffffffff813a57a2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(cpu_hotplug.lock);
> lock(s_active#170);
> lock(cpu_hotplug.lock);
> lock(s_active#170);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 7 locks held by s2disk/5651:
> #0: (pm_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107e9ea>] snapshot_ioctl+0x4b/0x431
> #1: (device_hotplug_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81283730>] lock_device_hotplug+0x12/0x14
> #2: (acpi_scan_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8122c657>] acpi_scan_lock_acquire+0x12/0x14
> #3: (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810817f2>] suspend_console+0x20/0x38
> #4: (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81039fb9>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x12/0x14
> #5: (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81039ff5>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x28/0x50
> #6: (cpufreq_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff812a84cc>] __cpufreq_add_dev.isra.18+0x7f/0x78c
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 5651 Comm: s2disk Not tainted 3.13.0-rc6+ #181
> Hardware name: LENOVO 2776LEG/2776LEG, BIOS 6EET55WW (3.15 ) 12/19/2011
> ffffffff81d3edf0 ffff8802174898f8 ffffffff81399cac 0000000000004549
> ffffffff81d3edf0 ffff880217489948 ffffffff81397dc5 ffff880217489928
> ffff88023198ea50 0000000000000006 ffff88023198f1d8 0000000000000006
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff81399cac>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x68
> [<ffffffff81397dc5>] print_circular_bug+0x1f8/0x209
> [<ffffffff81074760>] __lock_acquire+0xae3/0xe68
> [<ffffffff8107565d>] ? debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x12c/0x143
> [<ffffffff81075027>] lock_acquire+0xfb/0x144
> [<ffffffff8118b9d7>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x28/0x46
> [<ffffffff81072201>] ? lockdep_init_map+0x14e/0x160
> [<ffffffff8118b027>] sysfs_deactivate+0xa5/0x108
> [<ffffffff8118b9d7>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x28/0x46
> [<ffffffff8118b9d7>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x28/0x46
> [<ffffffff8118bd3f>] sysfs_remove+0x2a/0x31
> [<ffffffff8118be2f>] sysfs_remove_dir+0x66/0x6b
> [<ffffffff811d5d11>] kobject_del+0x18/0x42
> [<ffffffff811d5e1c>] kobject_cleanup+0xe1/0x14f
> [<ffffffff811d5ede>] kobject_put+0x45/0x49
> [<ffffffff812a6e85>] cpufreq_policy_put_kobj+0x37/0x83
> [<ffffffff812a8bab>] __cpufreq_add_dev.isra.18+0x75e/0x78c
> [<ffffffff81071b04>] ? __lock_is_held+0x32/0x54
> [<ffffffff812a8c39>] cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x53/0x88
> [<ffffffff813a314c>] notifier_call_chain+0x67/0x92
> [<ffffffff8105bce4>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x9/0xb
> [<ffffffff81039e7c>] __cpu_notify+0x1b/0x32
> [<ffffffff81039ea1>] cpu_notify+0xe/0x10
> [<ffffffff8103a12b>] _cpu_up+0xf1/0x124
> [<ffffffff8138ee7d>] enable_nonboot_cpus+0x52/0xbf
> [<ffffffff8107a2a3>] hibernation_snapshot+0x1be/0x2ed
> [<ffffffff8107eb84>] snapshot_ioctl+0x1e5/0x431
> [<ffffffff81139080>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x45e/0x4a8
> [<ffffffff811414c8>] ? fcheck_files+0xa1/0xe4
> [<ffffffff81141a67>] ? fget_light+0x33/0x9a
> [<ffffffff8113911c>] SyS_ioctl+0x52/0x82
> [<ffffffff811df4ce>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> [<ffffffff813a57a2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> CPU1 is up
> ACPI: Waking up from system sleep state S4
> PM: noirq thaw of devices complete after 2.727 msecs
> PM: early thaw of devices complete after 1.137 msecs
>
>
>
> This warning appeared when I tried cancelling hibernation, which is
> known to fail when using the acpi-cpufreq driver. The point of the test
> was to verify that such failures still produce the expected result:
>
> - all stale sysfs files are cleaned up and removed
> - later suspend/resume actions will restore (or actually reinitiate)
> the cpufreq driver for the non-boot CPUs
>
> Which was successful, except that it produced the above lockdep warning.
>
> I have not verified that this is a new warning (which means that it most
> likely is not). And I expect the whole acpi-cpufreq problem, including
> that warning, to go away when you eventually push
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg08714.html with your improved
> changelog (thanks for doing that BTW). So I don't worry too much about
> it. Just wanted to let you know.

OK, thanks! Well, this is somewhat worrisome.

Could you also check the linux-pm.git/fixes branch that contains all patches
I'm planning to push for 3.13-rc7 shortly?

Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: [PATCH][tentative] PCI / ACPI: Rework PCI host bridge removal to avoid sysfs warnings"
Previous message: Luigi Semenzato: "Re: [PATCH] Input: cros_ec_keyb - avoid variable-length arrays on stack"
In reply to: BjÃrn Mork: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: try to resume policies which failed on last resume"
Next in thread: BjÃrn Mork: "Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: try to resume policies which failed on last resume"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]