Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 08 May 2009 17:17:16 +0900 | | From | Hidetoshi Seto <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86 MCE: shut up lockdep warning |
| |
Shaohua Li wrote: > lockdep report below warning when I try to offline one cpu: > [ 110.835487] ================================= > [ 110.835616] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] > [ 110.835688] 2.6.30-rc4-00336-g8c9ed89 #52 > [ 110.835757] --------------------------------- > [ 110.835828] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage. > [ 110.835908] swapper/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: > [ 110.835982] (cmci_discover_lock){?.+...}, at: [<ffffffff80236dc0>] cmci_clear+0x30/0x9b > > smp_call_function_single() will disable interrupt. moving mce reenable/disable > to workqueue, so no irq is disabled.
I want a confirmation. Will this scheduled work be executed properly on the cpu which is going to offline?
> @@ -1106,14 +1108,14 @@ static int __cpuinit mce_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb, > case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE: > case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN: > del_timer_sync(t); > - smp_call_function_single(cpu, mce_disable_cpu, &action, 1); > + work_on_cpu(cpu, mce_disable_cpu, &action); > break; > case CPU_DOWN_FAILED: > case CPU_DOWN_FAILED_FROZEN: > t->expires = round_jiffies(jiffies + > __get_cpu_var(next_interval)); > add_timer_on(t, cpu); > - smp_call_function_single(cpu, mce_reenable_cpu, &action, 1); > + work_on_cpu(cpu, mce_reenable_cpu, &action); > break; > case CPU_POST_DEAD: > /* intentionally ignoring frozen here */ >
I believe there is strong reason to have "1" in the last argument of smp_call_function_single().
Thanks, H.Seto
|  |