summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-demo.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSrinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>2025-12-17 07:34:55 -0800
committerRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>2025-12-17 17:24:28 +0100
commitdcd0b625fe440d68bb4b97c71d18ca48ecd6e594 (patch)
treebcce10e032d86ef17fbca266b47498dcb08de308 /samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-demo.c
parentefc4c35b741af973de90f6826bf35d3b3ac36bf1 (diff)
powercap: intel_rapl: Fix possible recursive lock warning
With the RAPL PMU addition, there is a recursive locking when CPU online callback function calls rapl_package_add_pmu(). Here cpu_hotplug_lock is already acquired by cpuhp_thread_fun() and rapl_package_add_pmu() tries to acquire again. <4>[ 8.197433] ============================================ <4>[ 8.197437] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected <4>[ 8.197440] 6.19.0-rc1-lgci-xe-xe-4242-05b7c58b3367dca84+ #1 Not tainted <4>[ 8.197444] -------------------------------------------- <4>[ 8.197447] cpuhp/0/20 is trying to acquire lock: <4>[ 8.197450] ffffffff83487870 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at: rapl_package_add_pmu+0x37/0x370 [intel_rapl_common] <4>[ 8.197463] but task is already holding lock: <4>[ 8.197466] ffffffff83487870 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at: cpuhp_thread_fun+0x6d/0x290 <4>[ 8.197477] other info that might help us debug this: <4>[ 8.197480] Possible unsafe locking scenario: <4>[ 8.197483] CPU0 <4>[ 8.197485] ---- <4>[ 8.197487] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock); <4>[ 8.197490] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock); <4>[ 8.197493] *** DEADLOCK *** .. .. <4>[ 8.197542] __lock_acquire+0x146e/0x2790 <4>[ 8.197548] lock_acquire+0xc4/0x2c0 <4>[ 8.197550] ? rapl_package_add_pmu+0x37/0x370 [intel_rapl_common] <4>[ 8.197556] cpus_read_lock+0x41/0x110 <4>[ 8.197558] ? rapl_package_add_pmu+0x37/0x370 [intel_rapl_common] <4>[ 8.197561] rapl_package_add_pmu+0x37/0x370 [intel_rapl_common] <4>[ 8.197565] rapl_cpu_online+0x85/0x87 [intel_rapl_msr] <4>[ 8.197568] ? __pfx_rapl_cpu_online+0x10/0x10 [intel_rapl_msr] <4>[ 8.197570] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x41f/0x6c0 <4>[ 8.197573] ? cpuhp_thread_fun+0x6d/0x290 <4>[ 8.197575] cpuhp_thread_fun+0x1e2/0x290 <4>[ 8.197578] ? smpboot_thread_fn+0x26/0x290 <4>[ 8.197581] smpboot_thread_fn+0x12f/0x290 <4>[ 8.197584] ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10 <4>[ 8.197586] kthread+0x11f/0x250 <4>[ 8.197589] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 <4>[ 8.197592] ret_from_fork+0x344/0x3a0 <4>[ 8.197595] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 <4>[ 8.197597] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 <4>[ 8.197604] </TASK> Fix this issue in the same way as rapl powercap package domain is added from the same CPU online callback by introducing another interface which doesn't call cpus_read_lock(). Add rapl_package_add_pmu_locked() and rapl_package_remove_pmu_locked() which don't call cpus_read_lock(). Fixes: 748d6ba43afd ("powercap: intel_rapl: Enable MSR-based RAPL PMU support") Reported-by: Borah, Chaitanya Kumar <chaitanya.kumar.borah@intel.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/5427ede1-57a0-43d1-99f3-8ca4b0643e82@intel.com/T/#u Tested-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> Tested-by: RavitejaX Veesam <ravitejax.veesam@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20251217153455.3560176-1-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'samples/livepatch/livepatch-callbacks-demo.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions