[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1276529824.17519.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:07:04 +0530
From: Philby John <pjohn@...sta.com>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: Fix bug using smp_processor_id() in preemptible
ubi_bgt1d kthread
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 16:04 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Philby John wrote:
> > mtd: Fix bug using smp_processor_id() in preemptible ubi_bgt1d kthread
> >
> > On a MIPS Cavium Octeon CN5020 when trying to create a UBI volume,
> > on the NOR flash, the kernel thread ubi_bgt1d calls
> > cfi_amdstd_write_buffers() --> do_write_buffer() -->
> > INVALIDATE_CACHE_UDELAY --> __udelay(). Its __udelay() that calls
> > smp_processor_id() in preemptible code, which you are not supposed to.
> > Fix the problem by disabling preemption.
>
> The MTD code just calls udelay().
> Are you sure it isn't permitted to call udelay() from preemptible code?
> I think it is fine.
The mips code uses __udelay() where the macro current_cpu_data returns
the actual data structure on a per CPU basis by calling
smp_processor_id(). Since I have enabled CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT, this
would call debug_smp_processor_id(). This function would check
a)if the thread is preemptiable. If preemption is disabled, normal flow.
b)If irqs are disabled, if yes normal flow.
c)if the thread is bound to a single cpu, if yes normal flow
d)or if its an early bootup
None of these condition get satisfied and hence the kernel error
messages are seen. So I think yes for MIPS, udelay() shouldn't be called
in preemptiable code.
>
> Perhaps MIPS udelay() should be disabling preemption itself,
I will need to investigate this. Will follow up soon.
> or
> (as x86 does) using raw_smp_processor_id() instead?
I have enabled CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT so this would call
debug_smp_processor_id() instead of raw_smp_processor_id().
> Or perhaps the x86
> version is a bug because the current CPU might change during the delay loop?
>
Yes, isn't this a possibility? In that case shouldn't we be using
spin_lock_irqsave() ?
> See git commit 5c1ea08215f1f830dfaf4819a5f22efca41c3832
> "x86: enable preemption in delay"
>
> I don't think it makes sense to disable preemption in all udelay()
> calls in drivers, so my NAK to this MTD patch. To workaround,
> consider putting the preempt_disable in MIPS udelay(),
This would definitely work.
> or using
> raw_smp_processor_id() in it, after reading the above git commit's
> message.
Will look into this.
Thanks
Philby
--
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