Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 17:23:43 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix BUG: Invalid wait context in hrtimer_interrupt()
Message-ID: <YBBCDw8tBpgMSY3L@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210123233741.3614408-1-qais.yousef@arm.com>
 <YA+em8XkTidYetGE@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
 <20210126145917.r64vzibgpiwyuake@e107158-lin>
 <YBA8KTyANXe0v1kR@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YBA8KTyANXe0v1kR@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:58:33AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (21/01/26 14:59), Qais Yousef wrote:

> > 	# [67628.388606] hrtimer: interrupt took 304720 ns
> > 	[67628.393546]
> > 	[67628.393550] =============================
> > 	[67628.393554] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
> > 	[67628.393557] 5.11.0-rc3-00019-g86be331946f7 #37 Not tainted
> > 	[67628.393560] -----------------------------
> > 	[67628.393563] sugov:0/192 is trying to lock:
> > 	[67628.393566] ffff000800b1d898 (&port_lock_key){-.-.}-{3:3}, at: pl011_console_write+0x138/0x218
> > 	[67628.393581] other info that might help us debug this:
> > 	[67628.393584] context-{2:2}
> > 	[67628.393586] 4 locks held by sugov:0/192:
> > 	[67628.393589]  #0: ffff0008059cb720 (&sg_policy->work_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: sugov_work+0x58/0x88
> > 	[67628.393603]  #1: ffff800015446f20 (prepare_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: clk_prepare_lock+0x34/0xb0
> > 	[67628.393618]  #2: ffff8000152aaa60 (console_lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: vprintk_emit+0x12c/0x310
> > 	[67628.393632]  #3: ffff8000152aab88 (console_owner){-.-.}-{0:0}, at: console_unlock+0x190/0x6d8

> > Did I miss something?
> 
> printk() is not permitted to sleep/schedule/etc and it never does.
> Generally it should be OK to call it from IRQ (module recursion paths).

The report is that it is trying to acquire spin_lock() while holding
raw_spin_lock(), which is an invalid lock nesting.

Note that this is CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y which specifically
checks for this.

On current (mainline) kernel configs this is not yet a problem, but the
moment we do land PREEMPT_RT this order will be problematic.