linux/drivers/pci/intr_remapping.c

642 lines
13 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/dmar.h>
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <linux/jiffies.h>
#include <linux/pci.h>
#include <linux/irq.h>
#include <asm/io_apic.h>
#include <asm/smp.h>
#include <asm/cpu.h>
#include <linux/intel-iommu.h>
#include "intr_remapping.h"
static struct ioapic_scope ir_ioapic[MAX_IO_APICS];
static int ir_ioapic_num;
int intr_remapping_enabled;
struct irq_2_iommu {
struct intel_iommu *iommu;
u16 irte_index;
u16 sub_handle;
u8 irte_mask;
};
#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
static struct irq_2_iommu *get_one_free_irq_2_iommu(int cpu)
{
struct irq_2_iommu *iommu;
int node;
node = cpu_to_node(cpu);
iommu = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*iommu), GFP_ATOMIC, node);
printk(KERN_DEBUG "alloc irq_2_iommu on cpu %d node %d\n", cpu, node);
return iommu;
}
static struct irq_2_iommu *irq_2_iommu(unsigned int irq)
{
struct irq_desc *desc;
desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!desc))
return NULL;
return desc->irq_2_iommu;
}
static struct irq_2_iommu *irq_2_iommu_alloc_cpu(unsigned int irq, int cpu)
{
struct irq_desc *desc;
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
/*
* alloc irq desc if not allocated already.
*/
desc = irq_to_desc_alloc_cpu(irq, cpu);
if (!desc) {
printk(KERN_INFO "can not get irq_desc for %d\n", irq);
return NULL;
}
irq_iommu = desc->irq_2_iommu;
if (!irq_iommu)
desc->irq_2_iommu = get_one_free_irq_2_iommu(cpu);
return desc->irq_2_iommu;
}
static struct irq_2_iommu *irq_2_iommu_alloc(unsigned int irq)
{
return irq_2_iommu_alloc_cpu(irq, boot_cpu_id);
}
#else /* !CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ */
static struct irq_2_iommu irq_2_iommuX[NR_IRQS];
static struct irq_2_iommu *irq_2_iommu(unsigned int irq)
{
if (irq < nr_irqs)
return &irq_2_iommuX[irq];
return NULL;
}
static struct irq_2_iommu *irq_2_iommu_alloc(unsigned int irq)
{
return irq_2_iommu(irq);
}
#endif
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(irq_2_ir_lock);
static struct irq_2_iommu *valid_irq_2_iommu(unsigned int irq)
{
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
irq_iommu = irq_2_iommu(irq);
if (!irq_iommu)
return NULL;
if (!irq_iommu->iommu)
return NULL;
return irq_iommu;
}
int irq_remapped(int irq)
{
return valid_irq_2_iommu(irq) != NULL;
}
int get_irte(int irq, struct irte *entry)
{
int index;
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
unsigned long flags;
if (!entry)
return -1;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
irq_iommu = valid_irq_2_iommu(irq);
if (!irq_iommu) {
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return -1;
}
index = irq_iommu->irte_index + irq_iommu->sub_handle;
*entry = *(irq_iommu->iommu->ir_table->base + index);
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return 0;
}
int alloc_irte(struct intel_iommu *iommu, int irq, u16 count)
{
struct ir_table *table = iommu->ir_table;
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
u16 index, start_index;
unsigned int mask = 0;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
unsigned long flags;
int i;
if (!count)
return -1;
#ifndef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
/* protect irq_2_iommu_alloc later */
if (irq >= nr_irqs)
return -1;
#endif
/*
* start the IRTE search from index 0.
*/
index = start_index = 0;
if (count > 1) {
count = __roundup_pow_of_two(count);
mask = ilog2(count);
}
if (mask > ecap_max_handle_mask(iommu->ecap)) {
printk(KERN_ERR
"Requested mask %x exceeds the max invalidation handle"
" mask value %Lx\n", mask,
ecap_max_handle_mask(iommu->ecap));
return -1;
}
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
do {
for (i = index; i < index + count; i++)
if (table->base[i].present)
break;
/* empty index found */
if (i == index + count)
break;
index = (index + count) % INTR_REMAP_TABLE_ENTRIES;
if (index == start_index) {
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
printk(KERN_ERR "can't allocate an IRTE\n");
return -1;
}
} while (1);
for (i = index; i < index + count; i++)
table->base[i].present = 1;
irq_iommu = irq_2_iommu_alloc(irq);
if (!irq_iommu) {
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
printk(KERN_ERR "can't allocate irq_2_iommu\n");
return -1;
}
irq_iommu->iommu = iommu;
irq_iommu->irte_index = index;
irq_iommu->sub_handle = 0;
irq_iommu->irte_mask = mask;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return index;
}
static int qi_flush_iec(struct intel_iommu *iommu, int index, int mask)
{
struct qi_desc desc;
desc.low = QI_IEC_IIDEX(index) | QI_IEC_TYPE | QI_IEC_IM(mask)
| QI_IEC_SELECTIVE;
desc.high = 0;
return qi_submit_sync(&desc, iommu);
}
int map_irq_to_irte_handle(int irq, u16 *sub_handle)
{
int index;
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
unsigned long flags;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
irq_iommu = valid_irq_2_iommu(irq);
if (!irq_iommu) {
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return -1;
}
*sub_handle = irq_iommu->sub_handle;
index = irq_iommu->irte_index;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return index;
}
int set_irte_irq(int irq, struct intel_iommu *iommu, u16 index, u16 subhandle)
{
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
unsigned long flags;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
irq_iommu = irq_2_iommu_alloc(irq);
if (!irq_iommu) {
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
printk(KERN_ERR "can't allocate irq_2_iommu\n");
return -1;
}
irq_iommu->iommu = iommu;
irq_iommu->irte_index = index;
irq_iommu->sub_handle = subhandle;
irq_iommu->irte_mask = 0;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return 0;
}
int clear_irte_irq(int irq, struct intel_iommu *iommu, u16 index)
{
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
unsigned long flags;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
irq_iommu = valid_irq_2_iommu(irq);
if (!irq_iommu) {
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return -1;
}
irq_iommu->iommu = NULL;
irq_iommu->irte_index = 0;
irq_iommu->sub_handle = 0;
irq_2_iommu(irq)->irte_mask = 0;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return 0;
}
int modify_irte(int irq, struct irte *irte_modified)
{
int rc;
int index;
struct irte *irte;
struct intel_iommu *iommu;
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
unsigned long flags;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
irq_iommu = valid_irq_2_iommu(irq);
if (!irq_iommu) {
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return -1;
}
iommu = irq_iommu->iommu;
index = irq_iommu->irte_index + irq_iommu->sub_handle;
irte = &iommu->ir_table->base[index];
set_64bit((unsigned long *)irte, irte_modified->low);
__iommu_flush_cache(iommu, irte, sizeof(*irte));
rc = qi_flush_iec(iommu, index, 0);
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return rc;
}
int flush_irte(int irq)
{
int rc;
int index;
struct intel_iommu *iommu;
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
unsigned long flags;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
irq_iommu = valid_irq_2_iommu(irq);
if (!irq_iommu) {
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return -1;
}
iommu = irq_iommu->iommu;
index = irq_iommu->irte_index + irq_iommu->sub_handle;
rc = qi_flush_iec(iommu, index, irq_iommu->irte_mask);
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return rc;
}
x64, x2apic/intr-remap: IO-APIC support for interrupt-remapping IO-APIC support in the presence of interrupt-remapping infrastructure. IO-APIC RTE will be programmed with interrupt-remapping table entry(IRTE) index and the IRTE will contain information about the vector, cpu destination, trigger mode etc, which traditionally was present in the IO-APIC RTE. Introduce a new irq_chip for cleaner irq migration (in the process context as opposed to the current irq migration in the context of an interrupt. interrupt-remapping infrastructure will help us achieve this cleanly). For edge triggered, irq migration is a simple atomic update(of vector and cpu destination) of IRTE and flush the hardware cache. For level triggered, we need to modify the io-apic RTE aswell with the update vector information, along with modifying IRTE with vector and cpu destination. So irq migration for level triggered is little bit more complex compared to edge triggered migration. But the good news is, we use the same algorithm for level triggered migration as we have today, only difference being, we now initiate the irq migration from process context instead of the interrupt context. In future, when we do a directed EOI (combined with cpu EOI broadcast suppression) to the IO-APIC, level triggered irq migration will also be as simple as edge triggered migration and we can do the irq migration with a simple atomic update to IO-APIC RTE. TBD: some tests/changes needed in the presence of fixup_irqs() for level triggered irq migration. Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: arjan@linux.intel.com Cc: andi@firstfloor.org Cc: ebiederm@xmission.com Cc: jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org Cc: steiner@sgi.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-07-10 18:16:56 +00:00
struct intel_iommu *map_ioapic_to_ir(int apic)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < MAX_IO_APICS; i++)
if (ir_ioapic[i].id == apic)
return ir_ioapic[i].iommu;
return NULL;
}
struct intel_iommu *map_dev_to_ir(struct pci_dev *dev)
{
struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd;
drhd = dmar_find_matched_drhd_unit(dev);
if (!drhd)
return NULL;
return drhd->iommu;
}
int free_irte(int irq)
{
int rc = 0;
int index, i;
struct irte *irte;
struct intel_iommu *iommu;
struct irq_2_iommu *irq_iommu;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
unsigned long flags;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_lock_irqsave(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
irq_iommu = valid_irq_2_iommu(irq);
if (!irq_iommu) {
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return -1;
}
iommu = irq_iommu->iommu;
index = irq_iommu->irte_index + irq_iommu->sub_handle;
irte = &iommu->ir_table->base[index];
if (!irq_iommu->sub_handle) {
for (i = 0; i < (1 << irq_iommu->irte_mask); i++)
set_64bit((unsigned long *)(irte + i), 0);
rc = qi_flush_iec(iommu, index, irq_iommu->irte_mask);
}
irq_iommu->iommu = NULL;
irq_iommu->irte_index = 0;
irq_iommu->sub_handle = 0;
irq_iommu->irte_mask = 0;
x86, x2apic: fix lock ordering during IRQ migration Impact: fix potential deadlock on x2apic fix "hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected" with irq_2_ir_lock On x2apic enabled system: [ INFO: hard-safe -> hard-unsafe lock order detected ] 2.6.27-03151-g4480f15b #1 ------------------------------------------------------ swapper/1 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8038ebc0>] get_irte+0x2f/0x95 and this task is already holding: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...}, at: [<ffffffff802649ed>] setup_irq+0x67/0x281 which would create a new lock dependency: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} -> (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} but this new dependency connects a hard-irq-safe lock: (&irq_desc_lock_class){+...} ... which became hard-irq-safe at: [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff to a hard-irq-unsafe lock: (irq_2_ir_lock){--..} ... which became hard-irq-unsafe at: ... [<ffffffff802547b5>] __lock_acquire+0x571/0x706 [<ffffffff8025499f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71 [<ffffffff8062f2c4>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x38 [<ffffffff8038ee50>] alloc_irte+0x8a/0x14b [<ffffffff8021f733>] setup_IO_APIC_irq+0x119/0x30e [<ffffffff8090860e>] setup_IO_APIC+0x146/0x6e5 [<ffffffff809058fc>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x24e/0x2e9 [<ffffffff808f982c>] kernel_init+0x5a/0x176 [<ffffffff8020c289>] child_rip+0xa/0x11 [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff Fix this theoretical lock order issue by using spin_lock_irqsave() instead of spin_lock() Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2009-03-17 00:04:53 +00:00
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq_2_ir_lock, flags);
return rc;
}
static void iommu_set_intr_remapping(struct intel_iommu *iommu, int mode)
{
u64 addr;
u32 cmd, sts;
unsigned long flags;
addr = virt_to_phys((void *)iommu->ir_table->base);
spin_lock_irqsave(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
dmar_writeq(iommu->reg + DMAR_IRTA_REG,
(addr) | IR_X2APIC_MODE(mode) | INTR_REMAP_TABLE_REG_SIZE);
/* Set interrupt-remapping table pointer */
cmd = iommu->gcmd | DMA_GCMD_SIRTP;
writel(cmd, iommu->reg + DMAR_GCMD_REG);
IOMMU_WAIT_OP(iommu, DMAR_GSTS_REG,
readl, (sts & DMA_GSTS_IRTPS), sts);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
/*
* global invalidation of interrupt entry cache before enabling
* interrupt-remapping.
*/
qi_global_iec(iommu);
spin_lock_irqsave(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
/* Enable interrupt-remapping */
cmd = iommu->gcmd | DMA_GCMD_IRE;
iommu->gcmd |= DMA_GCMD_IRE;
writel(cmd, iommu->reg + DMAR_GCMD_REG);
IOMMU_WAIT_OP(iommu, DMAR_GSTS_REG,
readl, (sts & DMA_GSTS_IRES), sts);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
}
static int setup_intr_remapping(struct intel_iommu *iommu, int mode)
{
struct ir_table *ir_table;
struct page *pages;
ir_table = iommu->ir_table = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ir_table),
GFP_ATOMIC);
if (!iommu->ir_table)
return -ENOMEM;
pages = alloc_pages(GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_ZERO, INTR_REMAP_PAGE_ORDER);
if (!pages) {
printk(KERN_ERR "failed to allocate pages of order %d\n",
INTR_REMAP_PAGE_ORDER);
kfree(iommu->ir_table);
return -ENOMEM;
}
ir_table->base = page_address(pages);
iommu_set_intr_remapping(iommu, mode);
return 0;
}
/*
* Disable Interrupt Remapping.
*/
static void disable_intr_remapping(struct intel_iommu *iommu)
{
unsigned long flags;
u32 sts;
if (!ecap_ir_support(iommu->ecap))
return;
spin_lock_irqsave(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
sts = dmar_readq(iommu->reg + DMAR_GSTS_REG);
if (!(sts & DMA_GSTS_IRES))
goto end;
iommu->gcmd &= ~DMA_GCMD_IRE;
writel(iommu->gcmd, iommu->reg + DMAR_GCMD_REG);
IOMMU_WAIT_OP(iommu, DMAR_GSTS_REG,
readl, !(sts & DMA_GSTS_IRES), sts);
end:
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&iommu->register_lock, flags);
}
int __init enable_intr_remapping(int eim)
{
struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd;
int setup = 0;
for_each_drhd_unit(drhd) {
struct intel_iommu *iommu = drhd->iommu;
/*
* Clear previous faults.
*/
dmar_fault(-1, iommu);
/*
* Disable intr remapping and queued invalidation, if already
* enabled prior to OS handover.
*/
disable_intr_remapping(iommu);
dmar_disable_qi(iommu);
}
/*
* check for the Interrupt-remapping support
*/
for_each_drhd_unit(drhd) {
struct intel_iommu *iommu = drhd->iommu;
if (!ecap_ir_support(iommu->ecap))
continue;
if (eim && !ecap_eim_support(iommu->ecap)) {
printk(KERN_INFO "DRHD %Lx: EIM not supported by DRHD, "
" ecap %Lx\n", drhd->reg_base_addr, iommu->ecap);
return -1;
}
}
/*
* Enable queued invalidation for all the DRHD's.
*/
for_each_drhd_unit(drhd) {
int ret;
struct intel_iommu *iommu = drhd->iommu;
ret = dmar_enable_qi(iommu);
if (ret) {
printk(KERN_ERR "DRHD %Lx: failed to enable queued, "
" invalidation, ecap %Lx, ret %d\n",
drhd->reg_base_addr, iommu->ecap, ret);
return -1;
}
}
/*
* Setup Interrupt-remapping for all the DRHD's now.
*/
for_each_drhd_unit(drhd) {
struct intel_iommu *iommu = drhd->iommu;
if (!ecap_ir_support(iommu->ecap))
continue;
if (setup_intr_remapping(iommu, eim))
goto error;
setup = 1;
}
if (!setup)
goto error;
intr_remapping_enabled = 1;
return 0;
error:
/*
* handle error condition gracefully here!
*/
return -1;
}
static int ir_parse_ioapic_scope(struct acpi_dmar_header *header,
struct intel_iommu *iommu)
{
struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *drhd;
struct acpi_dmar_device_scope *scope;
void *start, *end;
drhd = (struct acpi_dmar_hardware_unit *)header;
start = (void *)(drhd + 1);
end = ((void *)drhd) + header->length;
while (start < end) {
scope = start;
if (scope->entry_type == ACPI_DMAR_SCOPE_TYPE_IOAPIC) {
if (ir_ioapic_num == MAX_IO_APICS) {
printk(KERN_WARNING "Exceeded Max IO APICS\n");
return -1;
}
printk(KERN_INFO "IOAPIC id %d under DRHD base"
" 0x%Lx\n", scope->enumeration_id,
drhd->address);
ir_ioapic[ir_ioapic_num].iommu = iommu;
ir_ioapic[ir_ioapic_num].id = scope->enumeration_id;
ir_ioapic_num++;
}
start += scope->length;
}
return 0;
}
/*
* Finds the assocaition between IOAPIC's and its Interrupt-remapping
* hardware unit.
*/
int __init parse_ioapics_under_ir(void)
{
struct dmar_drhd_unit *drhd;
int ir_supported = 0;
for_each_drhd_unit(drhd) {
struct intel_iommu *iommu = drhd->iommu;
if (ecap_ir_support(iommu->ecap)) {
if (ir_parse_ioapic_scope(drhd->hdr, iommu))
return -1;
ir_supported = 1;
}
}
if (ir_supported && ir_ioapic_num != nr_ioapics) {
printk(KERN_WARNING
"Not all IO-APIC's listed under remapping hardware\n");
return -1;
}
return ir_supported;
}