-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Input: psxpad-spi - Add PlayStation 1/2 joypads via SPI interface Driver #411
Conversation
PlayStation 1/2 joypads can be connected directly to the SPI interface. Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Yoshidomi <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> Acked-by: David Herrmann <[email protected]>
Hi @AZO234! Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel! Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch. Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process. Here's what to do:
How do I format my contribution?The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations. Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea. You can create patches with Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary. Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with. Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel. Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this. Who do I send my contribution to?The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes. If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the
Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches. It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.) How do I send my contribution?Use For more information about using How do I get help if I'm stuck?Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed. Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine. If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:
If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers! I sent my patch - now what?You wait. You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at. Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:
Further information
Happy hacking! This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot. |
Hi @AZO234,
This looks like an interesting contribuition - do you need any help
upstreaming it?
Regards,
Daniel
…On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:42 AM, AZO ***@***.***> wrote:
Closed #411 <#411>.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#411 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADJ5BcHplRbbLKUcPlsbGaNEuJ1V7egMks5r3hCVgaJpZM4NTAhp>
.
|
@daxtens looks like there's already some effort to upstream it - https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9705979/ |
We're getting a lockdep splat because we take the dio_sem under the log_mutex. What we really need is to protect fsync() from logging an extent map for an extent we never waited on higher up, so just guard the whole thing with dio_sem. ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 torvalds#411 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ aio-dio-invalid/30928 is trying to acquire lock: 0000000092621cfd (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 but task is already holding lock: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #5 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_write+0x51/0xb0 btrfs_log_changed_extents+0x80/0xa40 btrfs_log_inode+0xbaf/0x1000 btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x26f/0xa80 btrfs_log_dentry_safe+0x50/0x70 btrfs_sync_file+0x357/0x540 do_fsync+0x38/0x60 __ia32_sys_fdatasync+0x12/0x20 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #4 (&ei->log_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_record_unlink_dir+0x2a/0xa0 btrfs_unlink+0x5a/0xc0 vfs_unlink+0xb1/0x1a0 do_unlinkat+0x264/0x2b0 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #3 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 start_transaction+0x3e6/0x590 btrfs_evict_inode+0x475/0x640 evict+0xbf/0x1b0 btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0x6c/0x90 cleaner_kthread+0x124/0x1a0 kthread+0x106/0x140 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 -> #2 (&fs_info->cleaner_delayed_iput_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_alloc_data_chunk_ondemand+0x197/0x530 btrfs_check_data_free_space+0x4c/0x90 btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space+0x20/0x60 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x87/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #1 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x6a/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}: __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_read+0x48/0xb0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &mm->mmap_sem --> &ei->log_mutex --> &ei->dio_sem Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&ei->log_mutex); lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&mm->mmap_sem); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by aio-dio-invalid/30928: #0: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 30928 Comm: aio-dio-invalid Not tainted 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 torvalds#411 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x7c/0xbb print_circular_bug.isra.37+0x297/0x2a4 check_prev_add.constprop.45+0x781/0x7a0 ? __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 validate_chain.isra.41+0x7f0/0xb00 __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 down_read+0x48/0xb0 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 ? __alloc_workqueue_key+0x358/0x490 ? __blockdev_direct_IO+0x14b/0x1c20 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 ? io_submit_one+0xe5/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 CC: [email protected] # 4.14+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
We're getting a lockdep splat because we take the dio_sem under the log_mutex. What we really need is to protect fsync() from logging an extent map for an extent we never waited on higher up, so just guard the whole thing with dio_sem. ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 torvalds#411 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ aio-dio-invalid/30928 is trying to acquire lock: 0000000092621cfd (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 but task is already holding lock: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #5 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_write+0x51/0xb0 btrfs_log_changed_extents+0x80/0xa40 btrfs_log_inode+0xbaf/0x1000 btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x26f/0xa80 btrfs_log_dentry_safe+0x50/0x70 btrfs_sync_file+0x357/0x540 do_fsync+0x38/0x60 __ia32_sys_fdatasync+0x12/0x20 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #4 (&ei->log_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_record_unlink_dir+0x2a/0xa0 btrfs_unlink+0x5a/0xc0 vfs_unlink+0xb1/0x1a0 do_unlinkat+0x264/0x2b0 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #3 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 start_transaction+0x3e6/0x590 btrfs_evict_inode+0x475/0x640 evict+0xbf/0x1b0 btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0x6c/0x90 cleaner_kthread+0x124/0x1a0 kthread+0x106/0x140 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 -> #2 (&fs_info->cleaner_delayed_iput_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_alloc_data_chunk_ondemand+0x197/0x530 btrfs_check_data_free_space+0x4c/0x90 btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space+0x20/0x60 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x87/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #1 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x6a/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}: __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_read+0x48/0xb0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &mm->mmap_sem --> &ei->log_mutex --> &ei->dio_sem Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&ei->log_mutex); lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&mm->mmap_sem); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by aio-dio-invalid/30928: #0: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 30928 Comm: aio-dio-invalid Not tainted 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 torvalds#411 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x7c/0xbb print_circular_bug.isra.37+0x297/0x2a4 check_prev_add.constprop.45+0x781/0x7a0 ? __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 validate_chain.isra.41+0x7f0/0xb00 __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 down_read+0x48/0xb0 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 ? __alloc_workqueue_key+0x358/0x490 ? __blockdev_direct_IO+0x14b/0x1c20 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 ? io_submit_one+0xe5/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 CC: [email protected] # 4.14+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
commit c495144 upstream. We're getting a lockdep splat because we take the dio_sem under the log_mutex. What we really need is to protect fsync() from logging an extent map for an extent we never waited on higher up, so just guard the whole thing with dio_sem. ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 #411 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ aio-dio-invalid/30928 is trying to acquire lock: 0000000092621cfd (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 but task is already holding lock: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #5 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_write+0x51/0xb0 btrfs_log_changed_extents+0x80/0xa40 btrfs_log_inode+0xbaf/0x1000 btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x26f/0xa80 btrfs_log_dentry_safe+0x50/0x70 btrfs_sync_file+0x357/0x540 do_fsync+0x38/0x60 __ia32_sys_fdatasync+0x12/0x20 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #4 (&ei->log_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_record_unlink_dir+0x2a/0xa0 btrfs_unlink+0x5a/0xc0 vfs_unlink+0xb1/0x1a0 do_unlinkat+0x264/0x2b0 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #3 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 start_transaction+0x3e6/0x590 btrfs_evict_inode+0x475/0x640 evict+0xbf/0x1b0 btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0x6c/0x90 cleaner_kthread+0x124/0x1a0 kthread+0x106/0x140 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 -> #2 (&fs_info->cleaner_delayed_iput_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_alloc_data_chunk_ondemand+0x197/0x530 btrfs_check_data_free_space+0x4c/0x90 btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space+0x20/0x60 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x87/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #1 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x6a/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}: __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_read+0x48/0xb0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &mm->mmap_sem --> &ei->log_mutex --> &ei->dio_sem Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&ei->log_mutex); lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&mm->mmap_sem); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by aio-dio-invalid/30928: #0: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 30928 Comm: aio-dio-invalid Not tainted 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 #411 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x7c/0xbb print_circular_bug.isra.37+0x297/0x2a4 check_prev_add.constprop.45+0x781/0x7a0 ? __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 validate_chain.isra.41+0x7f0/0xb00 __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 down_read+0x48/0xb0 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 ? __alloc_workqueue_key+0x358/0x490 ? __blockdev_direct_IO+0x14b/0x1c20 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 ? io_submit_one+0xe5/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 CC: [email protected] # 4.14+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
commit c495144 upstream. We're getting a lockdep splat because we take the dio_sem under the log_mutex. What we really need is to protect fsync() from logging an extent map for an extent we never waited on higher up, so just guard the whole thing with dio_sem. ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 #411 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ aio-dio-invalid/30928 is trying to acquire lock: 0000000092621cfd (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 but task is already holding lock: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #5 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_write+0x51/0xb0 btrfs_log_changed_extents+0x80/0xa40 btrfs_log_inode+0xbaf/0x1000 btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x26f/0xa80 btrfs_log_dentry_safe+0x50/0x70 btrfs_sync_file+0x357/0x540 do_fsync+0x38/0x60 __ia32_sys_fdatasync+0x12/0x20 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #4 (&ei->log_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_record_unlink_dir+0x2a/0xa0 btrfs_unlink+0x5a/0xc0 vfs_unlink+0xb1/0x1a0 do_unlinkat+0x264/0x2b0 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #3 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 start_transaction+0x3e6/0x590 btrfs_evict_inode+0x475/0x640 evict+0xbf/0x1b0 btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0x6c/0x90 cleaner_kthread+0x124/0x1a0 kthread+0x106/0x140 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 -> #2 (&fs_info->cleaner_delayed_iput_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_alloc_data_chunk_ondemand+0x197/0x530 btrfs_check_data_free_space+0x4c/0x90 btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space+0x20/0x60 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x87/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #1 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x6a/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}: __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_read+0x48/0xb0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &mm->mmap_sem --> &ei->log_mutex --> &ei->dio_sem Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&ei->log_mutex); lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&mm->mmap_sem); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by aio-dio-invalid/30928: #0: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 30928 Comm: aio-dio-invalid Not tainted 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 #411 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x7c/0xbb print_circular_bug.isra.37+0x297/0x2a4 check_prev_add.constprop.45+0x781/0x7a0 ? __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 validate_chain.isra.41+0x7f0/0xb00 __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 down_read+0x48/0xb0 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 ? __alloc_workqueue_key+0x358/0x490 ? __blockdev_direct_IO+0x14b/0x1c20 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 ? io_submit_one+0xe5/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 CC: [email protected] # 4.14+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
commit c495144 upstream. We're getting a lockdep splat because we take the dio_sem under the log_mutex. What we really need is to protect fsync() from logging an extent map for an extent we never waited on higher up, so just guard the whole thing with dio_sem. ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 #411 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ aio-dio-invalid/30928 is trying to acquire lock: 0000000092621cfd (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 but task is already holding lock: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #5 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_write+0x51/0xb0 btrfs_log_changed_extents+0x80/0xa40 btrfs_log_inode+0xbaf/0x1000 btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x26f/0xa80 btrfs_log_dentry_safe+0x50/0x70 btrfs_sync_file+0x357/0x540 do_fsync+0x38/0x60 __ia32_sys_fdatasync+0x12/0x20 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #4 (&ei->log_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_record_unlink_dir+0x2a/0xa0 btrfs_unlink+0x5a/0xc0 vfs_unlink+0xb1/0x1a0 do_unlinkat+0x264/0x2b0 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #3 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 start_transaction+0x3e6/0x590 btrfs_evict_inode+0x475/0x640 evict+0xbf/0x1b0 btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0x6c/0x90 cleaner_kthread+0x124/0x1a0 kthread+0x106/0x140 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 -> #2 (&fs_info->cleaner_delayed_iput_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_alloc_data_chunk_ondemand+0x197/0x530 btrfs_check_data_free_space+0x4c/0x90 btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space+0x20/0x60 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x87/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #1 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x6a/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}: __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_read+0x48/0xb0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &mm->mmap_sem --> &ei->log_mutex --> &ei->dio_sem Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&ei->log_mutex); lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&mm->mmap_sem); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by aio-dio-invalid/30928: #0: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 30928 Comm: aio-dio-invalid Not tainted 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 #411 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x7c/0xbb print_circular_bug.isra.37+0x297/0x2a4 check_prev_add.constprop.45+0x781/0x7a0 ? __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 validate_chain.isra.41+0x7f0/0xb00 __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 down_read+0x48/0xb0 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 ? __alloc_workqueue_key+0x358/0x490 ? __blockdev_direct_IO+0x14b/0x1c20 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 ? io_submit_one+0xe5/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 CC: [email protected] # 4.14+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Fixes torvalds#411. It also fixes .gitignore to specify the renamed file. Fixes: 6e530cb ("lkl: fix autoconf filename as this will be public and installed") Signed-off-by: Hajime Tazaki <[email protected]>
BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1810820 commit c495144 upstream. We're getting a lockdep splat because we take the dio_sem under the log_mutex. What we really need is to protect fsync() from logging an extent map for an extent we never waited on higher up, so just guard the whole thing with dio_sem. ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 torvalds#411 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ aio-dio-invalid/30928 is trying to acquire lock: 0000000092621cfd (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 but task is already holding lock: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #5 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_write+0x51/0xb0 btrfs_log_changed_extents+0x80/0xa40 btrfs_log_inode+0xbaf/0x1000 btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x26f/0xa80 btrfs_log_dentry_safe+0x50/0x70 btrfs_sync_file+0x357/0x540 do_fsync+0x38/0x60 __ia32_sys_fdatasync+0x12/0x20 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #4 (&ei->log_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_record_unlink_dir+0x2a/0xa0 btrfs_unlink+0x5a/0xc0 vfs_unlink+0xb1/0x1a0 do_unlinkat+0x264/0x2b0 do_fast_syscall_32+0x9a/0x2f0 entry_SYSENTER_compat+0x84/0x96 -> #3 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 start_transaction+0x3e6/0x590 btrfs_evict_inode+0x475/0x640 evict+0xbf/0x1b0 btrfs_run_delayed_iputs+0x6c/0x90 cleaner_kthread+0x124/0x1a0 kthread+0x106/0x140 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 -> #2 (&fs_info->cleaner_delayed_iput_mutex){+.+.}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __mutex_lock+0x86/0xa10 btrfs_alloc_data_chunk_ondemand+0x197/0x530 btrfs_check_data_free_space+0x4c/0x90 btrfs_delalloc_reserve_space+0x20/0x60 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x87/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #1 (sb_pagefaults){.+.+}: lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 __sb_start_write+0x14d/0x230 btrfs_page_mkwrite+0x6a/0x520 do_page_mkwrite+0x31/0xa0 __handle_mm_fault+0x799/0xb00 handle_mm_fault+0x7c/0xe0 __do_page_fault+0x1d3/0x4a0 async_page_fault+0x1e/0x30 -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}: __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 down_read+0x48/0xb0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: &mm->mmap_sem --> &ei->log_mutex --> &ei->dio_sem Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&ei->log_mutex); lock(&ei->dio_sem); lock(&mm->mmap_sem); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by aio-dio-invalid/30928: #0: 00000000cefe6b35 (&ei->dio_sem){++++}, at: btrfs_direct_IO+0x3be/0x400 stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 30928 Comm: aio-dio-invalid Not tainted 4.18.0-rc4-xfstests-00025-g5de5edbaf1d4 torvalds#411 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0x7c/0xbb print_circular_bug.isra.37+0x297/0x2a4 check_prev_add.constprop.45+0x781/0x7a0 ? __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 validate_chain.isra.41+0x7f0/0xb00 __lock_acquire+0x42e/0x7a0 lock_acquire+0xbd/0x220 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 down_read+0x48/0xb0 ? get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_unlocked+0x5a/0x1e0 get_user_pages_fast+0xa4/0x150 iov_iter_get_pages+0xc3/0x340 do_direct_IO+0xf93/0x1d70 ? __alloc_workqueue_key+0x358/0x490 ? __blockdev_direct_IO+0x14b/0x1c20 __blockdev_direct_IO+0x32d/0x1c20 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? can_nocow_extent+0x490/0x490 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 btrfs_direct_IO+0x227/0x400 ? btrfs_run_delalloc_work+0x40/0x40 generic_file_direct_write+0xcf/0x180 btrfs_file_write_iter+0x308/0x58c aio_write+0xf8/0x1d0 ? kvm_clock_read+0x1f/0x30 ? __might_fault+0x3e/0x90 io_submit_one+0x3a9/0x620 ? io_submit_one+0xe5/0x620 __ia32_compat_sys_io_submit+0xb2/0x270 do_int80_syscall_32+0x5b/0x1a0 entry_INT80_compat+0x88/0xa0 CC: [email protected] # 4.14+ Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza <[email protected]>
HMC7044 features
rust: add support for calling some security functions.
PD#150465: driver defect clean up: torvalds#71 torvalds#77 torvalds#109 torvalds#127 torvalds#411 torvalds#600 torvalds#602 torvalds#603 torvalds#604 torvalds#611 torvalds#612 Change-Id: I38ac5ed6583bd6e57df9f42eaab04d05ee4ed663 Signed-off-by: Evoke Zhang <[email protected]>
PD#150465: driver defect clean up: torvalds#71 torvalds#77 torvalds#109 torvalds#127 torvalds#411 torvalds#600 torvalds#602 torvalds#603 torvalds#604 torvalds#611 torvalds#612 Change-Id: I38ac5ed6583bd6e57df9f42eaab04d05ee4ed663 Signed-off-by: Evoke Zhang <[email protected]>
Recently we got several deadlock report[1][2][3] caused by blk_mq_freeze_queue and blk_enter_queue(). Turns out the two are just like acquiring read/write lock, so model them as read/write lock for supporting lockdep: 1) model q->q_usage_counter as two locks(io and queue lock) - queue lock covers sync with blk_enter_queue() - io lock covers sync with bio_enter_queue() 2) make the lockdep class/key as per-queue: - different subsystem has very different lock use pattern, shared lock class causes false positive easily - freeze_queue degrades to no lock in case that disk state becomes DEAD because bio_enter_queue() won't be blocked any more - freeze_queue degrades to no lock in case that request queue becomes dying because blk_enter_queue() won't be blocked any more 3) model blk_mq_freeze_queue() as acquire_exclusive & try_lock - it is exclusive lock, so dependency with blk_enter_queue() is covered - it is trylock because blk_mq_freeze_queue() are allowed to run concurrently 4) model blk_enter_queue() & bio_enter_queue() as acquire_read() - nested blk_enter_queue() are allowed - dependency with blk_mq_freeze_queue() is covered - blk_queue_exit() is often called from other contexts(such as irq), and it can't be annotated as lock_release(), so simply do it in blk_enter_queue(), this way still covered cases as many as possible With lockdep support, such kind of reports may be reported asap and needn't wait until the real deadlock is triggered. For example, the following lockdep report can be triggered in the report[3]. [ 31.671822] ====================================================== [ 31.673169] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 31.674456] 6.11.0_nbd+ torvalds#411 Not tainted [ 31.675220] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 31.676379] bash/1425 is trying to acquire lock: [ 31.676861] ffff990b8ea27530 (&q->limits_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: queue_wc_store+0x8e/0x180 [ 31.677268] but task is already holding lock: [ 31.677548] ffff990b8ea27410 (&q->sysfs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: queue_attr_store+0x75/0xc0 [ 31.677931] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 31.678315] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 31.678664] -> #2 (&q->sysfs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: [ 31.678951] __mutex_lock+0xad/0xb20 [ 31.679157] queue_attr_store+0x75/0xc0 [ 31.679366] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x15c/0x210 [ 31.679608] vfs_write+0x2a7/0x540 [ 31.679801] ksys_write+0x75/0x100 [ 31.679999] do_syscall_64+0x95/0x180 [ 31.680209] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 31.680488] -> #1 (&q->q_usage_counter(queue)#2){++++}-{0:0}: [ 31.680839] blk_queue_enter+0x195/0x1d0 [ 31.681060] blk_mq_alloc_request+0x136/0x2d0 [ 31.681301] scsi_execute_cmd+0x9c/0x4c0 [ 31.681528] read_capacity_16+0x116/0x410 [ 31.681765] sd_revalidate_disk.isra.0+0x54d/0x2f00 [ 31.682044] sd_probe+0x2ec/0x520 [ 31.682238] really_probe+0xd3/0x390 [ 31.682445] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x150 [ 31.682682] driver_probe_device+0x1f/0x90 [ 31.682908] __device_attach_driver+0x89/0x110 [ 31.683161] bus_for_each_drv+0x95/0xf0 [ 31.683377] __device_attach_async_helper+0xa7/0xf0 [ 31.683639] async_run_entry_fn+0x31/0x130 [ 31.683875] process_one_work+0x212/0x700 [ 31.684100] worker_thread+0x1ce/0x380 [ 31.684308] kthread+0xd2/0x110 [ 31.684490] ret_from_fork+0x31/0x50 [ 31.684700] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 [ 31.684922] -> #0 (&q->limits_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: [ 31.685499] __lock_acquire+0x15c0/0x23e0 [ 31.685872] lock_acquire+0xd8/0x300 [ 31.686207] __mutex_lock+0xad/0xb20 [ 31.686535] queue_wc_store+0x8e/0x180 [ 31.686877] queue_attr_store+0x84/0xc0 [ 31.687231] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x15c/0x210 [ 31.687594] vfs_write+0x2a7/0x540 [ 31.687907] ksys_write+0x75/0x100 [ 31.688219] do_syscall_64+0x95/0x180 [ 31.688534] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 31.688910] other info that might help us debug this: [ 31.689621] Chain exists of: &q->limits_lock --> &q->q_usage_counter(queue)#2 --> &q->sysfs_lock [ 31.690549] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 31.691060] CPU0 CPU1 [ 31.691389] ---- ---- [ 31.691716] lock(&q->sysfs_lock); [ 31.691999] lock(&q->q_usage_counter(queue)#2); [ 31.692460] lock(&q->sysfs_lock); [ 31.692863] lock(&q->limits_lock); [ 31.693155] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 31.693746] 6 locks held by bash/1425: [ 31.694043] #0: ffff990b8007e420 (sb_writers#4){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x75/0x100 [ 31.694543] #1: ffff990bcf1a3288 (&of->mutex#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x115/0x210 [ 31.695119] #2: ffff990b91888378 (kn->active#166){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x11e/0x210 [ 31.695685] #3: ffff990b8ea26ee8 (&q->q_usage_counter(io)#2){++++}-{0:0}, at: queue_attr_store+0x60/0xc0 [ 31.696269] #4: ffff990b8ea26f20 (&q->q_usage_counter(queue)#2){++++}-{0:0}, at: queue_attr_store+0x60/0xc0 [ 31.696846] #5: ffff990b8ea27410 (&q->sysfs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: queue_attr_store+0x75/0xc0 [ 31.697381] stack backtrace: [ 31.697826] CPU: 9 UID: 0 PID: 1425 Comm: bash Not tainted 6.11.0_nbd+ torvalds#411 [ 31.698285] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-1.fc39 04/01/2014 [ 31.698807] Call Trace: [ 31.699058] <TASK> [ 31.699289] dump_stack_lvl+0x93/0xf0 [ 31.699598] print_circular_bug+0x26e/0x340 [ 31.699924] check_noncircular+0x16c/0x190 [ 31.700251] ? lock_acquire+0x2a1/0x300 [ 31.700561] __lock_acquire+0x15c0/0x23e0 [ 31.700877] lock_acquire+0xd8/0x300 [ 31.701181] ? queue_wc_store+0x8e/0x180 [ 31.701502] __mutex_lock+0xad/0xb20 [ 31.701806] ? queue_wc_store+0x8e/0x180 [ 31.702128] ? queue_wc_store+0x8e/0x180 [ 31.702446] ? queue_wc_store+0x8e/0x180 [ 31.702761] queue_wc_store+0x8e/0x180 [ 31.703084] ? __mutex_lock+0xad/0xb20 [ 31.703385] ? __mutex_lock+0x6e4/0xb20 [ 31.703691] ? mark_held_locks+0x40/0x70 [ 31.704004] ? queue_attr_store+0x75/0xc0 [ 31.704317] queue_attr_store+0x84/0xc0 [ 31.704643] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x15c/0x210 [ 31.704987] vfs_write+0x2a7/0x540 [ 31.705274] ksys_write+0x75/0x100 [ 31.705559] do_syscall_64+0x95/0x180 [ 31.705864] ? do_user_addr_fault+0x361/0x790 [ 31.706239] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0x4b/0xc0 [ 31.706564] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x25/0x80 [ 31.706966] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x25/0x80 [ 31.707272] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x25/0x80 [ 31.707568] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e [ 31.707927] RIP: 0033:0x7fb69d85e174 [ 31.708227] Code: 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff ff eb bd 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 f3 0f 1e fa 80 3d 6d b4 0d 00 00 74 13 b8 01 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 54 c3 0f 1f 00 55 48 89 e5 48 83 ec 20 48 89 [ 31.709343] RSP: 002b:00007ffed933fb48 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000001 [ 31.709834] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000005 RCX: 00007fb69d85e174 [ 31.710311] RDX: 0000000000000005 RSI: 000055713d6fb7d0 RDI: 0000000000000001 [ 31.710779] RBP: 00007ffed933fb70 R08: 0000000000000073 R09: 0000000000000001 [ 31.711263] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 0000000000000005 [ 31.711755] R13: 000055713d6fb7d0 R14: 00007fb69d932780 R15: 0000000000000005 [ 31.712242] </TASK> [1] occasional block layer hang when setting 'echo noop > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler' https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219166 [2] del_gendisk() vs blk_queue_enter() race condition https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/[email protected]/ [3] queue_freeze & queue_enter deadlock in scsi https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/ZxG38G9BuFdBpBHZ@fedora/T/#u Cc: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <[email protected]>
PlayStation 1/2 joypads can be connected directly to the SPI interface.
Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Yoshidomi [email protected]
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Torokhov [email protected]
Acked-by: David Herrmann [email protected]