lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep
From
Date
On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 13:49 -0700, mark gross wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 09:25:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 22:52 +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> > > Even after applying some fixes posted by Chirag and Peter Z, I'm still
> > > getting some messages in my log like this
> >
> > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context swapper(0) at
> > > kernel/rtmutex.c:743
> > > in_atomic():1 [00000001], irqs_disabled():1
> > > Pid: 0, comm: swapper Tainted: G W 2.6.26.1-rt1.jk #2
> > >
> > > Call Trace:
> > > [<ffffffff802305d3>] __might_sleep+0x12d/0x132
> > > [<ffffffff8046cdbe>] __rt_spin_lock+0x34/0x7d
> > > [<ffffffff8046ce15>] rt_spin_lock+0xe/0x10
> > > [<ffffffff802532e5>] pm_qos_requirement+0x1f/0x3c
> > > [<ffffffff803e1b7f>] menu_select+0x7b/0x9c
> > > [<ffffffff8020b1be>] ? default_idle+0x0/0x5a
> > > [<ffffffff8020b1be>] ? default_idle+0x0/0x5a
> > > [<ffffffff803e0b4b>] cpuidle_idle_call+0x68/0xd8
> > > [<ffffffff803e0ae3>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0x0/0xd8
> > > [<ffffffff8020b1be>] ? default_idle+0x0/0x5a
> > > [<ffffffff8020b333>] cpu_idle+0xb2/0x12d
> > > [<ffffffff80466af0>] start_secondary+0x186/0x18b
> > >
> > > ---------------------------
> > > | preempt count: 00000001 ]
> > > | 1-level deep critical section nesting:
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > > ... [<ffffffff8020b39c>] .... cpu_idle+0x11b/0x12d
> > > ......[<ffffffff80466af0>] .. ( <= start_secondary+0x186/0x18b)
> > >
> > > The following simple patch makes the messages disappear - however,
> > > there may be a better more fine grained solution, but the problem is
> > > also that all the functions are designed to use the same lock.
> >
> > Hmm, I think you're right - its called from the idle routine so we can't
> > go about sleeping there.
> >
> > The only trouble I have is with kernel/pm_qos_params.c:update_target()'s
> > use of this lock - that is decidedly not O(1).
> >
> > Mark, would it be possible to split that lock in two, one lock
> > protecting pm_qos_array[], and one lock protecting the
> > requirements.list ?
>
> very likely, but I'm not sure how it will help.
>
> the fine grain locking I had initially worked out on pm_qos was to have
> a lock per pm_qos_object, that would be used for accessing the
> requirement_list and the target_value. But that isn't what you are
> asking about is it?
>
> Is what you want is a pm_qos_requirements_list_lock and a
> pm_qos_target_value_lock, for each pm_qos_object instance?
>
> I guess it wold work but besides giving the code spinlock diarrhea would
> it really help solve the issue you are seeing?

The problem is that on -rt spinlocks turn into mutexes. And the above
BUG tells us that the idle loop might end up scheduling due to trying to
take this lock.

Now, the way I read the code, pm_qos_lock protects multiple things:

- pm_qos_array[target]->target_value

- &pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->requirements.list

Now, the thing is, we could turn the lock back into a real spinlock
(raw_spinlock_t), but the loops in eg update_target() are not O(1) and
could thus cause serious preempt-off latencies.

My question was, and now having had a second look at the code I think it
is, would it be possible to guard the list using a sleeping lock,
protect the target_value using a (raw) spinlock.

OTOH, just reading a (word aligned, word sized) value doesn't normally
require serialization, esp if the update site is already serialized by
other means.

So could we perhaps remove the lock usage from pm_qos_requirement()? -
that too would solve the issue.


- Peter



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-05 23:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans