[-next] Lockdep warnings

[Mark Rutland]

[Adding Peter; I suspect this is due to the cpuidle rework]

I'll go give next a spin in a VM, but I suspect I might need real HW to see
this due to the way PSCI idle states work.

Mark.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 11:41:34AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> I was seeing the below lockdep warnings on my arm64 Juno development
> platform almost 2 weeks back with -next. I wanted to check for similar
> reports before post and forgot.
> 
> --->8
> 
> DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(lockdep_hardirqs_enabled())
>  hardirqs last  enabled at (46157): cpuidle_enter_state+0x174/0x2b4
>  WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 0 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5506 check_flags+0x90/0x1e8
>  hardirqs last disabled at (46158): el1_interrupt+0x2c/0xc8
>  Modules linked in:
>  softirqs last  enabled at (46154): __do_softirq+0x2c0/0x388
>  softirqs last disabled at (46139): __irq_exit_rcu+0x118/0x18c
>  CPU: 5 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/5 Not tainted 5.19.0-rc6-next-20220714 #9
>  pstate: 600000c5 (nZCv daIF -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>  pc : check_flags+0x90/0x1e8
>  lr : check_flags+0x90/0x1e8
>  Call trace:
>   check_flags+0x90/0x1e8
>   lock_is_held_type+0x80/0x164
>   rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x40/0x7c
>   trace_rcu_dyntick+0x5c/0x140
>   ct_kernel_enter+0x78/0xd4
>   ct_idle_exit+0x1c/0x44
>   cpu_idle_poll+0x74/0xb8
>   do_idle+0x90/0x2c4
>   cpu_startup_entry+0x30/0x34
>   secondary_start_kernel+0x130/0x144
>   __secondary_switched+0xb0/0xb4
>  irq event stamp: 64229
>  hardirqs last  enabled at (64229): cpu_idle_poll+0x40/0xb8
>  hardirqs last disabled at (64228): do_idle+0xbc/0x2c4
>  softirqs last  enabled at (64190): __do_softirq+0x2c0/0x388
>  softirqs last disabled at (64185): __irq_exit_rcu+0x118/0x18c
>  ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]---
>  possible reason: unannotated irqs-off.
>  irq event stamp: 64229
>  hardirqs last  enabled at (64229): cpu_idle_poll+0x40/0xb8
>  hardirqs last disabled at (64228): do_idle+0xbc/0x2c4
>  softirqs last  enabled at (64190): __do_softirq+0x2c0/0x388
>  softirqs last disabled at (64185): __irq_exit_rcu+0x118/0x18c
> 
> ----
> 
> However I don't see the above warning with the latest -next. When I tried
> yesterday's -next now, I see a different warning. Not sure if they are
> related. I haven't tried to bisect.
> 
> --->8
> =============================
> [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
> 5.19.0-rc8-next-20220725 #38 Not tainted
> -----------------------------
> swapper/0/0 is trying to lock:
> (&drvdata->spinlock){....}-{3:3}, at: cti_cpu_pm_notify+0x54/0x114
> other info that might help us debug this:
> context-{5:5}
> 1 lock held by swapper/0/0:
>  #0: (cpu_pm_notifier.lock){....}-{2:2}, at: cpu_pm_enter+0x2c/0x80
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8-next-20220725-00004-g599e6691ed8c #38
> Call trace:
>  dump_backtrace+0xe8/0x108
>  show_stack+0x18/0x4c
>  dump_stack_lvl+0x90/0xc8
>  dump_stack+0x18/0x54
>  __lock_acquire+0xa70/0x32d0
>  lock_acquire+0x160/0x308
>  _raw_spin_lock+0x60/0xa0
>  cti_cpu_pm_notify+0x54/0x114
>  raw_notifier_call_chain_robust+0x50/0xd4
>  cpu_pm_enter+0x48/0x80
>  psci_enter_idle_state+0x34/0x74
>  cpuidle_enter_state+0x120/0x2a8
>  cpuidle_enter+0x38/0x50
>  do_idle+0x1e8/0x2b8
>  cpu_startup_entry+0x24/0x28
>  kernel_init+0x0/0x1a0
>  start_kernel+0x0/0x470
>  start_kernel+0x34c/0x470
>  __primary_switched+0xbc/0xc4
> 
> ----
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep