55f2ea9ff8
During the SSR/PDR down notification the tx_lock is taken with the
intent to provide synchronization with active DMA transfers.
But during this period qcom_slim_ngd_down() is invoked, which ends up in
slim_report_absent(), which takes the slim_controller lock. In multiple
other codepaths these two locks are taken in the opposite order (i.e.
slim_controller then tx_lock).
The result is a lockdep splat, and a possible deadlock:
rprocctl/449 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff00009793e620 (&ctrl->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: slim_report_absent (drivers/slimbus/core.c:322) slimbus
but task is already holding lock:
ffff00009793fb50 (&ctrl->tx_lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify (drivers/slimbus/qcom-ngd-ctrl.c:1475) slim_qcom_ngd_ctrl
which lock already depends on the new lock.
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&ctrl->tx_lock);
lock(&ctrl->lock);
lock(&ctrl->tx_lock);
lock(&ctrl->lock);
The assumption is that the comment refers to the desire to not call
qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() while we have an ongoing DMA TX transaction.
But any such transaction is initiated and completed within a single
qcom_slim_ngd_xfer_msg().
Prior to calling qcom_slim_ngd_exit_dma() the slim_controller is torn
down, all child devices are notified that the slimbus is gone and the
child devices are removed.
Stop taking the tx_lock in qcom_slim_ngd_ssr_pdr_notify() to avoid the
deadlock.
Fixes:
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| core.c | ||
| Kconfig | ||
| Makefile | ||
| messaging.c | ||
| qcom-ngd-ctrl.c | ||
| sched.c | ||
| slimbus.h | ||
| stream.c | ||