lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog
From
Date
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:21 +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:

> [ 67.703556] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: s2disk/5139
> [ 67.703563] caller is touch_nmi_watchdog+0x15/0x2c
> [ 67.703566] Pid: 5139, comm: s2disk Not tainted 2.6.36-rc0-git12-07921-g60bf26a-dirty #116
> [ 67.703568] Call Trace:
> [ 67.703575] [<ffffffff811f6bf1>] debug_smp_processor_id+0xc9/0xe4
> [ 67.703578] [<ffffffff81092766>] touch_nmi_watchdog+0x15/0x2c
> [ 67.703584] [<ffffffff81222950>] acpi_os_stall+0x34/0x40
> [ 67.703589] [<ffffffff812398d2>] acpi_ex_system_do_stall+0x34/0x38

Which could mean two things, either ACPI got funny on us, or Don's new
watchdog stuff has a hole in it.


> ---
>
> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> index 613bc1f..8822f1e 100644
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -116,13 +116,14 @@ static unsigned long get_sample_period(void)
> static void __touch_watchdog(void)
> {
> int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> -
> - __get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
> + per_cpu(watchdog_touch_ts, this_cpu) = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
> }

That change seems sensible enough..

> void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
> {
> - __get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = 0;
> + int this_cpu = get_cpu();
> + per_cpu(watchdog_touch_ts, this_cpu) = 0;
> + put_cpu();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
>
> @@ -142,7 +143,9 @@ void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
> #ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
> {
> - __get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true;
> + int this_cpu = get_cpu();
> + per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, this_cpu) = true;
> + put_cpu();
> touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);

These other two really are about assumptions we make on the call sites,
which at the very least are violated by ACPI.

Don/Ingo, remember if we require touch_*_watchdog callers to have
preemption disabled? Or is the proposed patch sensible?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-16 10:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site