Hi Paul,
Something seems to have changed in RCU in 4.2-rc1, as it is now complaining
about a tracepoint in tick_freeze() like this:
[ 66.340508] ===============================
[ 66.340509] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
[ 66.340512] 4.2.0-rc1+ #1691 Not tainted
[ 66.340513] -------------------------------
[ 66.340515] /scratch/rafael/work/linux-pm/include/trace/events/power.h:193
suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
[ 66.340517]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 66.340519]
RCU used illegally from idle CPU!
rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
[ 66.340520] RCU used illegally from extended quiescent state!
[ 66.340522] 1 lock held by swapper/0/0:
[ 66.340538] #0: (tick_freeze_lock){......}, at: [<ffffffff810dcb39>]
tick_freeze+0x19/0x230
[ 66.340539]
stack backtrace:
[ 66.340543] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.2.0-rc1+ #1691
[ 66.340544] Hardware name: TOSHIBA PORTEGE R500/Portable PC, BIOS Version
1.60 03/04/2008
[ 66.340550] 0000000000000001 ffffffff81c03e48 ffffffff817ab99d
0000000000000004
[ 66.340555] ffffffff81c10500 ffffffff81c03e78 ffffffff810a2dd7
0000000000000003
[ 66.340560] 0000000000000000 ffffffff81a6b2c7 ffffffffa00b3090
ffffffff81c03ea8
[ 66.340561] Call Trace:
[ 66.340567] [<ffffffff817ab99d>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x7b
[ 66.340573] [<ffffffff810a2dd7>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
[ 66.340577] [<ffffffff810dcca8>] tick_freeze+0x188/0x230
[ 66.340582] [<ffffffff816357a0>] cpuidle_enter_freeze+0x30/0x80
[ 66.340586] [<ffffffff8109a495>] cpu_startup_entry+0x455/0x490
[ 66.340591] [<ffffffff8179e882>] rest_init+0x132/0x140
[ 66.340595] [<ffffffff8179e750>] ? csum_partial_copy_generic+0x170/0x170
[ 66.340601] [<ffffffff81d14049>] start_kernel+0x484/0x491
[ 66.340604] [<ffffffff81d139aa>] ? set_init_arg+0x58/0x58
[ 66.340608] [<ffffffff81d135ad>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
[ 66.340611] [<ffffffff81d13696>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xe7/0xeb
It didn't complained about it before, AFAICS, but in any case the simplest
way to deal with it seems to be to put tick_freeze() under RCU_NONIDLE()
like in the patch below.
I wonder what you think about it?
Thanks,
Rafael
---
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
Subject: cpuidle / s2i: Prevent RCU from complaining about tick_freeze()
Put tick_freeze() under RCU_NONIDLE() to prevent RCU from complaining
about suspicious RCU usage in idle by trace_suspend_resume() called
from there.
While at it, fix a comment related to another usage of RCU_NONIDLE()
in enter_freeze_proper().
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
---
drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
@@ -112,7 +112,12 @@ int cpuidle_find_deepest_state(struct cp
static void enter_freeze_proper(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
struct cpuidle_device *dev, int index)
{
- tick_freeze();
+ /*
+ * trace_suspend_resume() called by tick_freeze() for the last CPU
+ * executing it contains RCU usage regarded as invalid in the idle
+ * context, so tell RCU about that.
+ */
+ RCU_NONIDLE(tick_freeze());
/*
* The state used here cannot be a "coupled" one, because the "coupled"
* cpuidle mechanism enables interrupts and doing that with timekeeping
@@ -122,7 +127,7 @@ static void enter_freeze_proper(struct c
WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
/*
* timekeeping_resume() that will be called by tick_unfreeze() for the
- * last CPU executing it calls functions containing RCU read-side
+ * first CPU executing it calls functions containing RCU read-side
* critical sections, so tell RCU about that.
*/
RCU_NONIDLE(tick_unfreeze());
--
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/
