[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804080030500.3896@jikos.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 00:33:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() during suspend with 2.6.25-rc8
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The mce resume is a sysdev.
> > sysdevs were always supposed to run completely with interrupts off. If they
> > don't anymore that's some kind of higher level resume code bug which you need
> > to fix there, not hack around in the low level code.
> They are executed with interrupts disabled, on one CPU.
So, any idea why mce_resume() -> mce_init() -> debug_smp_processor_id()
triggers the warning? Apparently preempt_count is zero, irqs_disabled()
returns false, and cpumask_of_cpu() is not equal to current->cpus_allowed.
So there clearly is a bug somewhere.
> > Obviously turning on preemption anywhere around the machine check is
> > fatal because it touches CPU state and if you reschedule you could
> > switch to another CPU and change or access the wrong CPU's state.
> FWIW, at the point when sysdevs are resumed we are single-threaded.
Is that really relevant here? We still could be switched over to another
CPU, and that would break things.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists