Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

May 16 firmware: AIRPI i2c BMP085 and BMP180 temp and pressure sensors misread #599

Closed
g7ruh opened this issue May 20, 2014 · 9 comments
Closed

May 16 firmware: AIRPI i2c BMP085 and BMP180 temp and pressure sensors misread #599

g7ruh opened this issue May 20, 2014 · 9 comments

Comments

@g7ruh
Copy link

g7ruh commented May 20, 2014

May 16th firmware causes temp and pressure sensors to misread
Uploading pressure reading issue.PNG . . .
Uploading temp reading issue.PNG . . .

reverting to May 13th firmware fixes the problem. This is on 2 PIs here : https://xively.com/develop/a73wzKTeenrmwkbKnrZq and here https://xively.com/develop/5sS4LOiW-HpUN0kuPKG0 Note that the graphs show average so take time to "change". Viewing raw data shows fix works.

reposted here as requested by popcornmix
@popcornmix
Copy link
Collaborator

Looks to be caused by:
#318

@cbeytas can you help with this?

@popcornmix popcornmix mentioned this issue May 21, 2014
Merged
@cinhil
Copy link

cinhil commented May 21, 2014

Hello,
I also have i2c issues since 16 May firmware. Reverting to 13th May fixes the problem.
I have sometimes read and write problem on RTC clock ds1307. It fails in 10% of read/write test.

@cinhil
Copy link

cinhil commented May 25, 2014

Hello,
With a revert of "Perform I2C combined transactions when possible" commit, I do not have any problem with the RTC DS1307 anymore.
Regards,

@Swap-File
Copy link

I also have i2c issues with my Minimu9 http://www.pololu.com/product/1268 running Minimu9-ahrs https://github.com/DavidEGrayson/minimu9-ahrs since the May 16th firmware. I reverted to May 13th firmware and it fixed it.

@popcornmix
Copy link
Collaborator

The combined I2C transactions commit is now disabled by default.
Please run rpi-update and test.

@g7ruh
Copy link
Author

g7ruh commented May 27, 2014

Hi popcornmix,

updated and tested, all back to normal, many thanks for all your hard work making the pi GREAT (and others too)

Roger aka G7RUH

@popcornmix
Copy link
Collaborator

Exellent. Okay to close?

@Swap-File
Copy link

It's tested and working for me too. Thanks!

@g7ruh
Copy link
Author

g7ruh commented May 28, 2014

Thanks Swap-File too.
Popcornmix, fine to close.

@g7ruh g7ruh closed this as completed May 28, 2014
0day-ci pushed a commit to 0day-ci/linux that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2016
@notro
i2c: bcm2835: Add support for combined write-read transfer
b4ac87c 
Some SMBus protocols use Repeated Start Condition to switch from write
mode to read mode. Devices like MMA8451 won't work without it.

When downstream implemented support for this in i2c-bcm2708, it broke
support for some devices, so a module parameter was added and combined
transfer was disabled by default.
See raspberrypi/linux#599
It doesn't seem to have been any investigation into what the problem
really was. Later there was added a timeout on the polling loop.

One of the devices mentioned to partially stop working was DS1307.

I have run thousands of transfers to a DS1307 (rtc), MMA8451 (accel)
and AT24C32 (eeprom) in parallel without problems.

Signed-off-by: Noralf Trønnes <[email protected]>
popcornmix pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 16, 2024
@morbidrsa @gregkh
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
a2e99dc 
[ Upstream commit 8cca35c ]

Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
popcornmix pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 16, 2024
@morbidrsa @gregkh
btrfs: don't take dev_replace rwsem on task already holding it
a5bc4e0 
[ Upstream commit 8cca35c ]

Running fstests btrfs/011 with MKFS_OPTIONS="-O rst" to force the usage of
the RAID stripe-tree, we get the following splat from lockdep:

 BTRFS info (device sdd): dev_replace from /dev/sdd (devid 1) to /dev/sdb started

 ============================================
 WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599 Not tainted
 --------------------------------------------
 btrfs/2326 is trying to acquire lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 but task is already holding lock:
 ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 other info that might help us debug this:
  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0
        ----
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);
   lock(&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

 1 lock held by btrfs/2326:
  #0: ffff88810f215c98 (&fs_info->dev_replace.rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250

 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 2326 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 6.11.0-rc3-btrfs-for-next #599
 Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
 Call Trace:
  <TASK>
  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x80
  __lock_acquire+0x2798/0x69d0
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  down_read+0x8e/0x440
  ? btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x39f/0x2250
  ? btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0xd9/0x2e0
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_bio_counter_inc_blocked+0x10/0x10
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  ? mempool_alloc_noprof+0xed/0x2b0
  btrfs_submit_chunk+0x28d/0x17e0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_submit_chunk+0x10/0x10
  ? bvec_alloc+0xd7/0x1b0
  ? bio_add_folio+0x171/0x270
  ? __pfx_bio_add_folio+0x10/0x10
  ? __kasan_check_read+0x20/0x20
  btrfs_submit_bio+0x37/0x80
  read_extent_buffer_pages+0x3df/0x6c0
  btrfs_read_extent_buffer+0x13e/0x5f0
  read_tree_block+0x81/0xe0
  read_block_for_search+0x4bd/0x7a0
  ? __pfx_read_block_for_search+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_search_slot+0x78d/0x2720
  ? __pfx_btrfs_search_slot+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_is_held_type+0x8f/0x100
  ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30
  ? __kasan_slab_alloc+0x6e/0x70
  ? kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x1f2/0x300
  btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x181/0x820
  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_btrfs_get_raid_extent_offset+0x10/0x10
  ? down_read+0x194/0x440
  ? __pfx_down_read+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  btrfs_map_block+0x5b5/0x2250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_map_block+0x10/0x10
  scrub_submit_initial_read+0x8fe/0x11b0
  ? __pfx_scrub_submit_initial_read+0x10/0x10
  submit_initial_group_read+0x161/0x3a0
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_submit_initial_group_read+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  scrub_simple_mirror.isra.0+0x3eb/0x580
  scrub_stripe+0xe4d/0x1440
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? __pfx_scrub_stripe+0x10/0x10
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_read_unlock+0x44/0x70
  ? _raw_read_unlock+0x23/0x40
  scrub_chunk+0x257/0x4a0
  scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x64c/0xf70
  ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x147/0x5f0
  ? __pfx_scrub_enumerate_chunks+0x10/0x10
  ? bit_wait_timeout+0xb0/0x170
  ? __up_read+0x189/0x700
  ? scrub_workers_get+0x231/0x300
  ? up_write+0x490/0x4f0
  btrfs_scrub_dev+0x52e/0xcd0
  ? create_pending_snapshots+0x230/0x250
  ? __pfx_btrfs_scrub_dev+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0xd69/0x1d00
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? __pfx_btrfs_dev_replace_by_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? btrfs_ioctl+0xa09/0x74f0
  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_lock+0x10/0x10
  btrfs_ioctl+0xa14/0x74f0
  ? lock_acquire+0x19d/0x4a0
  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
  ? __pfx_btrfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? lock_release+0x20e/0x710
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_vfs_ioctl+0x10/0x10
  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x11e/0x240
  ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x270/0x3e0
  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x50
  ? do_sigaction+0x3f0/0x860
  ? __pfx_do_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x18e/0x1e0
  ? __pfx___x64_sys_rt_sigaction+0x10/0x10
  ? __x64_sys_close+0x7c/0xd0
  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x137/0x190
  do_syscall_64+0x71/0x140
  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
 RIP: 0033:0x7f0bd1114f9b
 Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x7f0bd1114f71.
 RSP: 002b:00007ffc8a8c3130 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
 RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000003 RCX: 00007f0bd1114f9b
 RDX: 00007ffc8a8c35e0 RSI: 00000000ca289435 RDI: 0000000000000003
 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
 R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007ffc8a8c6c85
 R13: 00000000398e72a0 R14: 0000000000004361 R15: 0000000000000004
  </TASK>

This happens because on RAID stripe-tree filesystems we recurse back into
btrfs_map_block() on scrub to perform the logical to device physical
mapping.

But as the device replace task is already holding the dev_replace::rwsem
we deadlock.

So don't take the dev_replace::rwsem in case our task is the task performing
the device replace.

Suggested-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@popcornmix @Swap-File @g7ruh @cinhil