timekeeping: Avoid possible deadlock from clock_was_set_delayed
authorJohn Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Wed, 11 Dec 2013 01:18:18 +0000 (17:18 -0800)
committerGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:55:45 +0000 (13:55 -0800)
commit970719a34d1e443eee0d52a52b0e8a755819d4cb
treebcbafc96324cb67c8c2c96550a1ba831d9fdd171
parent224655fc3e805bcc5a2139eaae28f783fa206df9
timekeeping: Avoid possible deadlock from clock_was_set_delayed

commit 6fdda9a9c5db367130cf32df5d6618d08b89f46a upstream.

As part of normal operaions, the hrtimer subsystem frequently calls
into the timekeeping code, creating a locking order of
  hrtimer locks -> timekeeping locks

clock_was_set_delayed() was suppoed to allow us to avoid deadlocks
between the timekeeping the hrtimer subsystem, so that we could
notify the hrtimer subsytem the time had changed while holding
the timekeeping locks. This was done by scheduling delayed work
that would run later once we were out of the timekeeing code.

But unfortunately the lock chains are complex enoguh that in
scheduling delayed work, we end up eventually trying to grab
an hrtimer lock.

Sasha Levin noticed this in testing when the new seqlock lockdep
enablement triggered the following (somewhat abrieviated) message:

[  251.100221] ======================================================
[  251.100221] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[  251.100221] 3.13.0-rc2-next-20131206-sasha-00005-g8be2375-dirty #4053 Not tainted
[  251.101967] -------------------------------------------------------
[  251.101967] kworker/10:1/4506 is trying to acquire lock:
[  251.101967]  (timekeeper_seq){----..}, at: [<ffffffff81160e96>] retrigger_next_event+0x56/0x70
[  251.101967]
[  251.101967] but task is already holding lock:
[  251.101967]  (hrtimer_bases.lock#11){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81160e7c>] retrigger_next_event+0x3c/0x70
[  251.101967]
[  251.101967] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[  251.101967]
[  251.101967]
[  251.101967] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[  251.101967]
-> #5 (hrtimer_bases.lock#11){-.-...}:
[snipped]
-> #4 (&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock){-.-...}:
[snipped]
-> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
[snipped]
-> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
[snipped]
-> #1 (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){-.-...}:
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81194803>] validate_chain+0x6c3/0x7b0
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81194d9d>] __lock_acquire+0x4ad/0x580
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81194ff2>] lock_acquire+0x182/0x1d0
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff84398500>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81153e69>] __queue_work+0x1a9/0x3f0
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81154168>] queue_work_on+0x98/0x120
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81161351>] clock_was_set_delayed+0x21/0x30
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff811c4bd1>] do_adjtimex+0x111/0x160
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff811e2711>] compat_sys_adjtimex+0x41/0x70
[  251.101967]        [<ffffffff843a4b49>] ia32_sysret+0x0/0x5
[  251.101967]
-> #0 (timekeeper_seq){----..}:
[snipped]
[  251.101967] other info that might help us debug this:
[  251.101967]
[  251.101967] Chain exists of:
  timekeeper_seq --> &rt_b->rt_runtime_lock --> hrtimer_bases.lock#11

[  251.101967]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[  251.101967]
[  251.101967]        CPU0                    CPU1
[  251.101967]        ----                    ----
[  251.101967]   lock(hrtimer_bases.lock#11);
[  251.101967]                                lock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
[  251.101967]                                lock(hrtimer_bases.lock#11);
[  251.101967]   lock(timekeeper_seq);
[  251.101967]
[  251.101967]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[  251.101967]
[  251.101967] 3 locks held by kworker/10:1/4506:
[  251.101967]  #0:  (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81154960>] process_one_work+0x200/0x530
[  251.101967]  #1:  (hrtimer_work){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81154960>] process_one_work+0x200/0x530
[  251.101967]  #2:  (hrtimer_bases.lock#11){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81160e7c>] retrigger_next_event+0x3c/0x70
[  251.101967]
[  251.101967] stack backtrace:
[  251.101967] CPU: 10 PID: 4506 Comm: kworker/10:1 Not tainted 3.13.0-rc2-next-20131206-sasha-00005-g8be2375-dirty #4053
[  251.101967] Workqueue: events clock_was_set_work

So the best solution is to avoid calling clock_was_set_delayed() while
holding the timekeeping lock, and instead using a flag variable to
decide if we should call clock_was_set() once we've released the locks.

This works for the case here, where the do_adjtimex() was the deadlock
trigger point. Unfortuantely, in update_wall_time() we still hold
the jiffies lock, which would deadlock with the ipi triggered by
clock_was_set(), preventing us from calling it even after we drop the
timekeeping lock. So instead call clock_was_set_delayed() at that point.

Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Tested-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
kernel/time/timekeeping.c