leds: tps61310: handle video torch modes#2
Closed
u-ra wants to merge 1 commit intoh8rift:cm-11.0from
u-ra:h8_flashlight_fix
Closed
leds: tps61310: handle video torch modes#2u-ra wants to merge 1 commit intoh8rift:cm-11.0from u-ra:h8_flashlight_fix
u-ra wants to merge 1 commit intoh8rift:cm-11.0from
u-ra:h8_flashlight_fix
Conversation
Fixes flashlight control on TeslaLED app, possibly others.
Owner
|
Thanks u-ra. Manually merged giving you authorship ofc. |
h8rift
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2014
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>
h8rift
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 11, 2014
commit 6f2e9f0e7d795214b9cf5a47724a273b705fd113 upstream. Now when we set the group inode free count, we don't have a proper group lock so that multiple threads may decrease the inode free count at the same time. And e2fsck will complain something like: Free inodes count wrong for group #1 (1, counted=0). Fix? no Free inodes count wrong for group #2 (3, counted=0). Fix? no Directories count wrong for group #2 (780, counted=779). Fix? no Free inodes count wrong for group #3 (2272, counted=2273). Fix? no So this patch try to protect it with the ext4_lock_group. btw, it is found by xfstests test case 269 and the volume is mkfsed with the parameter "-O ^resize_inode,^uninit_bg,extent,meta_bg,flex_bg,ext_attr" and I have run it 100 times and the error in e2fsck doesn't show up again. Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> Signed-off-by: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
RSchris on XDA reported torch only works from CM camera & torch app. I tried to reproduce, and sure enough, some apps like TeslaLED want FL_MODE_VIDEO_TORCH which currently isn't handled. Added the others to be on the safe side.