lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Regression 3.4] tick_broadcast_mask is not restored after a CPU has been offline/onlined
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:18:32AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:42:18 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:08:47AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:07:47PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:39:13 -0700
> > > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:15:59PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I debugged a suspend/resume bug, I found that
> > > > > > tick_broadcast_mask is not restored for a CPU after it is
> > > > > > offline/onlined since kernel 3.4, while it's fine for 3.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you please try 3.5?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it's the same for 3.5
> > >
> > > Thank you for checking, Feng.
> > >
> > > Len, the comment above the change says:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * FIXME: Design the ACPI notification to make it once per
> > > * system instead of once per-cpu. This condition is a hack
> > > * to make the code that updates C-States be called once.
> > > */
> > >
> > > Is it time for this design-level change? Or is there something obvious
> > > that I missed when fixing the smp_processor_id() splat?
> > >
> > > I could revert back, but use raw_smp_processor_id() rather than
> > > smp_processor_id(), but that feels like papering over a problem rather
> > > than fixing it.
> >
> > But should papering be appropriate, here is the patch.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
>
> Just found and have a patch to fix a typo in acpi processor_driver.c, which
> could also fix this tick_broadcast_mask issue.
>
> Patch is in https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/30/483
>
> So I think we don't need this "papering over" patch :)

Very good, I have dropped it.

Thanx, Paul

> Thanks,
> Feng
>
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ACPI: Repair fix to unprotected smp_processor_id()
> >
> > Commit 9505626d (ACPI: Fix unprotected smp_processor_id() in
> > acpi_processor_cst_has_changed()) introduced a suspend/resume bug.
> > This commit therefore introduces a bug-for-bug compatible fix for the
> > original problem.
> >
> > Reported-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > index 47a8caa..19c151a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> > @@ -1218,7 +1218,8 @@ int acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(struct
> > acpi_processor *pr)
> > * to make the code that updates C-States be called once.
> > */
> >
> > - if (pr->id == 0 && cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver) {
> > + if (raw_smp_processor_id() == 0 &&
> > + cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver) {
> >
> > cpuidle_pause_and_lock();
> > /* Protect against cpu-hotplug */
> >
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-31 07:01    [W:0.048 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site