lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3.6-rc6] cpufreq/powernow-k8: workqueue user shouldn't migrate the kworker to another CPU
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:17:21PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> powernowk8_target() runs off a per-cpu work item and if the
> cpufreq_policy->cpu is different from the current one, it migrates the
> kworker to the target CPU by manipulating current->cpus_allowed. The
> function migrates the kworker back to the original CPU but this is
> still broken. Workqueue concurrency management requires the kworkers
> to stay on the same CPU and powernowk8_target() ends up triggerring
> BUG_ON(rq != this_rq()) in try_to_wake_up_local() if it contends on
> fidvid_mutex and sleeps.
>
> It is unclear why this bug is being reported now. Duncan says it
> appeared to be a regression of 3.6-rc1 and couldn't reproduce it on
> 3.5. Bisection seemed to point to 63d95a91 "workqueue: use @pool
> instead of @gcwq or @cpu where applicable" which is an non-functional
> change. Given that the reproduce case sometimes took upto days to
> trigger, it's easy to be misled while bisecting. Maybe something made
> contention on fidvid_mutex more likely? I don't know.
>
> This patch fixes the bug by punting to another per-cpu work item on
> the target CPU if it isn't the same as the current one. The code
> assumes that cpufreq_policy->cpu is kept online by the caller, which
> Rafael tells me is the case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> Cc: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47301
> ---
>
> While it's very late in the merge cycle, the fix is limited in scope
> and fairly safe, so it wouldn't be too crazy to merge but then again
> this can go through the next -rc1 and then -stable. Linus, Rafael,
> what do you guys think?

Wouldn't it be much simpler to carve out the piece after
set_cpus_allowed_ptr(), put it in a sub-function called
__powernowk8_target() and call it with smp_call_function_single instead
of defining another work item?

Would the workqueue code handle that or are there any other issues?

> drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

If it can, the diffstat should look much slimmer.

Thanks.

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-17 23:01    [W:0.115 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site