+ Tony.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:31:29PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 08:46 AM, Chen Gong wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 06:44:08PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> offlining a CPU in 3.9-rc3 gets me this trace..
> >>
> >> numa_remove_cpu cpu 1 node 0: mask now 0,2-3
> >> smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> >> BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code:
> >> cpu-offline.sh/10591
> >> caller is cmci_rediscover+0x6a/0xe0
> >> Pid: 10591, comm: cpu-offline.sh Not tainted 3.9.0-rc3+ #2
> >> Call Trace:
> >> [<ffffffff81333bbd>] debug_smp_processor_id+0xdd/0x100
> >> [<ffffffff8101edba>] cmci_rediscover+0x6a/0xe0
> >> [<ffffffff815f5b9f>] mce_cpu_callback+0x19d/0x1ae
> >> [<ffffffff8160ea66>] notifier_call_chain+0x66/0x150
> >> [<ffffffff8107ad7e>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0xe/0x10
> >> [<ffffffff8104c2e3>] cpu_notify+0x23/0x50
> >> [<ffffffff8104c31e>] cpu_notify_nofail+0xe/0x20
> >> [<ffffffff815ef082>] _cpu_down+0x302/0x350
> >> [<ffffffff815ef106>] cpu_down+0x36/0x50
> >> [<ffffffff815f1c9d>] store_online+0x8d/0xd0
> >> [<ffffffff813edc48>] dev_attr_store+0x18/0x30
> >> [<ffffffff81226eeb>] sysfs_write_file+0xdb/0x150
> >> [<ffffffff811adfb2>] vfs_write+0xa2/0x170
> >> [<ffffffff811ae16c>] sys_write+0x4c/0xa0
> >> [<ffffffff81613019>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >>
> > Try this patch:
> >
> > diff a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c
> > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c
> > index 402c454..692c91e 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c
> > @@ -311,10 +311,12 @@ void cmci_rediscover(int dying)
> > if (cpu == dying)
> > continue;
> >
> > - if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> > + if (cpu == get_cpu()) {
> > + put_cpu();
> > cmci_rediscover_work_func(NULL);
> > continue;
> > - }
> > + } else
> > + put_cpu();
> >
> > work_on_cpu(cpu, cmci_rediscover_work_func, NULL);
> > }
> >
>
> That doesn't really look right to me. In fact, the function cmci_rediscover()
> looks like it needs some attention. Let me quote the function here, so
> that its easier to discuss what's wrong with it..
>
>
> /*
> * After a CPU went down cycle through all the others and rediscover
> * Must run in process context.
> */
> void cmci_rediscover(int dying)
> {
> int cpu, banks;
>
> if (!cmci_supported(&banks))
> return;
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> if (cpu == dying)
> continue;
>
> if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> cmci_rediscover_work_func(NULL);
> continue;
> }
>
> work_on_cpu(cpu, cmci_rediscover_work_func, NULL);
> }
> }
>
> First of all, I think the comment that says that it must run in process
> context, is stale. I think its a remnant of the code which used to do
> GFP_KERNEL allocations for a temporary cpumask (looking at git logs).
> The function cmci_discover() takes a spin lock with irqs disabled. So
> obviously this whole thing can run in atomic context.
>
> And cmci_rediscover() is called from CPU_POST_DEAD handler. So the CPU
> which was supposed to go offline would have already gone offline and
> out of the cpu_online_mask. So there is no point checking
> 'if (cpu == dying)' in that for-loop.
>
> So, how about something like this:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------>
>
> From: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] x86/mce: Rework cmci_rediscover() to play well with CPU
> hotplug
>
> Dave Jones reports that offlining a CPU leads to this trace:
>
> numa_remove_cpu cpu 1 node 0: mask now 0,2-3
> smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code:
> cpu-offline.sh/10591
> caller is cmci_rediscover+0x6a/0xe0
> Pid: 10591, comm: cpu-offline.sh Not tainted 3.9.0-rc3+ #2
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff81333bbd>] debug_smp_processor_id+0xdd/0x100
> [<ffffffff8101edba>] cmci_rediscover+0x6a/0xe0
> [<ffffffff815f5b9f>] mce_cpu_callback+0x19d/0x1ae
> [<ffffffff8160ea66>] notifier_call_chain+0x66/0x150
> [<ffffffff8107ad7e>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0xe/0x10
> [<ffffffff8104c2e3>] cpu_notify+0x23/0x50
> [<ffffffff8104c31e>] cpu_notify_nofail+0xe/0x20
> [<ffffffff815ef082>] _cpu_down+0x302/0x350
> [<ffffffff815ef106>] cpu_down+0x36/0x50
> [<ffffffff815f1c9d>] store_online+0x8d/0xd0
> [<ffffffff813edc48>] dev_attr_store+0x18/0x30
> [<ffffffff81226eeb>] sysfs_write_file+0xdb/0x150
> [<ffffffff811adfb2>] vfs_write+0xa2/0x170
> [<ffffffff811ae16c>] sys_write+0x4c/0xa0
> [<ffffffff81613019>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
>
> However, a look at cmci_rediscover shows that it can be simplified quite
> a bit, apart from solving the above issue. It invokes functions that
> take spin locks with interrupts disabled, and hence it can run in atomic
> context. Also, it is run in the CPU_POST_DEAD phase, so the dying CPU
> is already dead and out of the cpu_online_mask. So take these points into
> account and simplify the code, and thereby also fix the above issue.
>
> Reported-by: Dave Jones <da...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>
> arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h | 4 ++--
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c | 25 +++++--------------------
> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
> index f4076af..fa5f71e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mce.h
> @@ -146,13 +146,13 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct device *, mce_device);
> void mce_intel_feature_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c);
> void cmci_clear(void);
> void cmci_reenable(void);
> -void cmci_rediscover(int dying);
> +void cmci_rediscover(void);
> void cmci_recheck(void);
> #else
> static inline void mce_intel_feature_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) { }
> static inline void cmci_clear(void) {}
> static inline void cmci_reenable(void) {}
> -static inline void cmci_rediscover(int dying) {}
> +static inline void cmci_rediscover(void) {}
> static inline void cmci_recheck(void) {}
> #endif
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> index 7bc1263..9239504 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> @@ -2358,7 +2358,7 @@ mce_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb, unsigned
> long action, void *hcpu)
>
> if (action == CPU_POST_DEAD) {
> /* intentionally ignoring frozen here */
> - cmci_rediscover(cpu);
> + cmci_rediscover();
> }
>
> return NOTIFY_OK;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c
> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c
> index 402c454..ae1697c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_intel.c
> @@ -285,39 +285,24 @@ void cmci_clear(void)
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cmci_discover_lock, flags);
> }
>
> -static long cmci_rediscover_work_func(void *arg)
> +static void cmci_rediscover_work_func(void *arg)
> {
> int banks;
>
> /* Recheck banks in case CPUs don't all have the same */
> if (cmci_supported(&banks))
> cmci_discover(banks);
> -
> - return 0;
> }
>
> -/*
> - * After a CPU went down cycle through all the others and rediscover
> - * Must run in process context.
> - */
> -void cmci_rediscover(int dying)
> +/* After a CPU went down cycle through all the others and rediscover */
> +void cmci_rediscover(void)
> {
> - int cpu, banks;
> + int banks;
>
> if (!cmci_supported(&banks))
> return;
>
> - for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> - if (cpu == dying)
> - continue;
> -
> - if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> - cmci_rediscover_work_func(NULL);
> - continue;
> - }
> -
> - work_on_cpu(cpu, cmci_rediscover_work_func, NULL);
> - }
> + on_each_cpu(cmci_rediscover_work_func, NULL, 1);
> }
>
> /*
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
