lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 08 May 2009 17:17:16 +0900
FromHidetoshi Seto <>
SubjectRe: [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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-08 10:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2010