On Thu, 30 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> [ 40.085841] WARNING: at
> /home/konrad/linux-linus/kernel/time/tick-sched.c:935
> tick_nohz_idle_exit+0x195/0x1b0()
>
> which I presume is b/c the code does not expect to be run _after_ it has
> offlined. However, under the PV code, the mechanism is that that a CPU
> that has been offlined, can resume (if it is onlined). If you look at:
>
> 445 static void __cpuinit xen_play_dead(void) /* used only with HOTPLUG_CPU
> */
> 446 {
>
> 447 play_dead_common();
>
> 448 HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_down, smp_processor_id(), NULL);
>
> 449 cpu_bringup();
>
> 450 }
>
> That is called right after the CPU is put to sleep and the hypercall
> VCPUOP_down blocks - until the CPU is brough back up. And which point
> we end up calling cpu_bringup - which sets up the clockevets, timers, etc.
>
> I am wondering if part of this is that the ts->inidle gets reset
> b/c we end up resetting all the timers but then when xen_play_dead
> exits, it ends up right back in the cpu_idle_loop() loop - and we
> call tick_nohz_idle_exit().
>
> Thoughts?
cpu_dead() is definitely not expected to return after the cpu has been
declared dead. I should have put a big fat warning into the generic
idle loop for this :)
The reason why you get that warning only now is commit 4b0c0f294
(tick: Cleanup NOHZ per cpu data on cpu down), which is btw. targeted
for stable as well.
We can't revert the above commit as it fixes a long standing
nastiness, so for now until I come around to make the idle loop return
on cpu down you probably need to call tick_nohz_idle_enter() before
returning from play_dead().
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
