The lock in qp_table might be taken from process context or from
interrupt context. This may lead to a deadlock unless it is taken with
IRQs disabled.
Discovered by lockdep
================================
WARNING: inconsistent lock state
4.20.0-rc6
--------------------------------
inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W}
python/12572 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
00000000052a4df4 (&(&table->lock)->rlock#2){?.+.}, /0x50 [mlx5_core]
{HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
_raw_spin_lock+0x33/0x70
mlx5_get_rsc+0x1a/0x50 [mlx5_core]
mlx5_ib_eqe_pf_action+0x493/0x1be0 [mlx5_ib]
process_one_work+0x90c/0x1820
worker_thread+0x87/0xbb0
kthread+0x320/0x3e0
ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
irq event stamp: 103928
hardirqs last enabled at (103927): [] nk+0x1a/0x1c
hardirqs last disabled at (103928): [] unk+0x1a/0x1c
softirqs last enabled at (103924): [] tcp_sendmsg+0x31/0x40
softirqs last disabled at (103922): [] 80
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&(&table->lock)->rlock#2);
lock(&(&table->lock)->rlock#2);
*** DEADLOCK ***
Fixes: 032080ab43 ("IB/mlx5: Lock QP during page fault handling")
Signed-off-by: Moni Shoua <monis@mellanox.com>
Reviewed-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>
33814e5d12