BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1731882

commit 692b4825 upstream.

Josef reported a HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected by
lockdep:

 [ 1270.472259] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
 [ 1270.472783] 4.14.0-rc1-xfstests-12888-g76833e8 #110 Not tainted
 [ 1270.473240] -----------------------------------------------------
 [ 1270.473710] kworker/u5:2/5157 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
 [ 1270.474239]  (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8da253d2>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xa2/0x280
 [ 1270.474994]
 [ 1270.474994] and this task is already holding:
 [ 1270.475440]  (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8d2992f6>] worker_thread+0x366/0x3c0
 [ 1270.476046] which would create a new lock dependency:
 [ 1270.476436]  (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} -> (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
 [ 1270.476949]
 [ 1270.476949] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock:
 [ 1270.477553]  (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}
 ...
 [ 1270.488900] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
 [ 1270.489327]  (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
 ...
 [ 1270.494735]  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
 [ 1270.494735]
 [ 1270.495250]        CPU0                    CPU1
 [ 1270.495600]        ----                    ----
 [ 1270.495947]   lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
 [ 1270.496295]                                local_irq_disable();
 [ 1270.496753]                                lock(&pool->lock/1);
 [ 1270.497205]                                lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
 [ 1270.497744]   <Interrupt>
 [ 1270.497948]     lock(&pool->lock/1);

, which will cause a irq inversion deadlock if the above lock scenario
happens.

The root cause of this safe -> unsafe lock order is the
mutex_unlock(pool->manager_arb) in manage_workers() with pool->lock
held.

Unlocking mutex while holding an irq spinlock was never safe and this
problem has been around forever but it never got noticed because the
only time the mutex is usually trylocked while holding irqlock making
actual failures very unlikely and lockdep annotation missed the
condition until the recent b9c16a0e ("locking/mutex: Fix
lockdep_assert_held() fail").

Using mutex for pool->manager_arb has always been a bit of stretch.
It primarily is an mechanism to arbitrate managership between workers
which can easily be done with a pool flag.  The only reason it became
a mutex is that pool destruction path wants to exclude parallel
managing operations.

This patch replaces the mutex with a new pool flag POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE
and make the destruction path wait for the current manager on a wait
queue.

v2: Drop unnecessary flag clearing before pool destruction as
    suggested by Boqun.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Reported-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo@canonical.com>