From patchwork Mon May 20 07:06:01 2013 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Michael Wang X-Patchwork-Id: 2591011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork-linux-pm@patchwork.kernel.org Delivered-To: patchwork-process-083081@patchwork1.kernel.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by patchwork1.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7A963FE81 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 07:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754871Ab3ETHGP (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2013 03:06:15 -0400 Received: from e23smtp05.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.147]:54426 "EHLO e23smtp05.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754670Ab3ETHGO (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2013 03:06:14 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp05.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:00:43 +1000 Received: from d23dlp02.au.ibm.com (202.81.31.213) by e23smtp05.au.ibm.com (202.81.31.211) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:00:40 +1000 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.21]) by d23dlp02.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CC52BB0053; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:06:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r4K760ri18022482; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:06:00 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r4K766Nt001049; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:06:07 +1000 Received: from [9.111.17.47] (wangyun.cn.ibm.com [9.111.17.47]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r4K762hn000980; Mon, 20 May 2013 17:06:03 +1000 Message-ID: <5199CB59.1020309@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:06:01 +0800 From: Michael Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov CC: Tejun Heo , "Paul E. McKenney" , Jiri Kosina , Frederic Weisbecker , Tony Luck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , rjw@sisk.pl, Viresh Kumar , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NOHZ: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:123 native_smp_send_reschedule, round 2 References: <20130509125040.GF27333@pd.tnic> <20130509125859.GG27333@pd.tnic> <20130515184528.GO4442@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130515224358.GF11783@pd.tnic> <20130515235512.GT4442@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130517135641.GF23035@pd.tnic> <51999591.8030401@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130520045023.GA12690@pd.tnic> <5199C169.7060504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130520064727.GD12690@pd.tnic> <5199C990.3020602@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <5199C990.3020602@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13052007-1396-0000-0000-000002FEEEB7 Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 05/20/2013 02:58 PM, Michael Wang wrote: > On 05/20/2013 02:47 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:23:37PM +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >>> On 05/20/2013 12:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote: >>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:16:33AM +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >>>>> I suppose the reason is that the cpu we passed to >>>>> mod_delayed_work_on() has a chance to become offline before we >>>>> disabled irq, what about check it before send resched ipi? like: >>>> >>>> I think this is only addressing the symptoms - what we should be doing >>>> instead is asking ourselves why are we even scheduling work on a cpu if >>>> the machine goes offline? >>>> >>>> I don't know though who should be responsible for killing all that >>>> work - the workqueue itself or the guy who created it, i.e. cpufreq >>>> governor... >>> >>> So there are two questions here: >>> 1. Is gov_queue_work() want to queue the work on offline cpu? >>> 2. Is mod_delayed_work_on() allow offline cpu? >>> >>> I guess both should be false? >> >> Well, if we don't allow queueing work on a cpu which goes offline, i.e. >> #2, the problem should be solved. > > I've take a look at the usage of queue_delayed_work_on() and > mod_delayed_work_on(), mostly passed this_cpu, or those in online mask, > I think offline cpu is not by designed. > > Besides, the cpu gov_queue_work() is using 'policy->cpus' which seems to > be updated during UP DOWN notify, I think they are supposed to be online. > > But we need expert in cpufreq to confirm all these... And I guess this may help to reduce the chance to trigger WARN: } Well, disable irq will be better, anyway...still need folks who own that driver to make the decision, so let's CC them :) Regards, Michael Wang > > Regards, > Michael Wang > >> >> Tejun? >> >> Here are the splats: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136879901425951 >> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > --- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c index 443442d..0f96013 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ void gov_queue_work(struct dbs_data *dbs_data, struct cpufreq_policy *policy, if (!all_cpus) { __gov_queue_work(smp_processor_id(), dbs_data, delay); } else { - for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus) + for_each_cpu_and(i, policy->cpus, cpu_online_mask) __gov_queue_work(i, dbs_data, delay); }