[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101110074307.GC29493@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:43:07 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dongdong Deng <dongdong.deng@...driver.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: avoid calling arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() at
the same time on SMP
* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> From: Dongdong Deng <dongdong.deng@...driver.com>
>
> The spin_lock_debug/rcu_cpu_stall detector uses
> trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() to dump cpu backtrace.
> Therefore it is possible that trigger_all_cpu_backtrace()
> could be called at the same time on different CPUs, which
> triggers and 'unknown reason NMI' warning. The following case
> illustrates the problem:
>
> CPU1 CPU2 ... CPU N
> trigger_all_cpu_backtrace()
> set "backtrace_mask" to cpu mask
> |
> generate NMI interrupts generate NMI interrupts ...
> \ | /
> \ | /
> The "backtrace_mask" will be cleaned by the first NMI interrupt
> at nmi_watchdog_tick(), then the following NMI interrupts generated
> by other cpus's arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() will be took as
> unknown reason NMI interrupts.
>
> This patch uses a lock to avoid the problem, and stop the
> arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() calling to avoid dumping double cpu
> backtrace info when there is already a trigger_all_cpu_backtrace()
> in progress.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dongdong Deng <dongdong.deng@...driver.com>
> Reviewed-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@...driver.com>
> CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> CC: x86@...nel.org
> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/nmi.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c
> index cefd694..3aea0a5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,16 @@ u64 hw_nmi_get_sample_period(void)
> void arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(void)
> {
> int i;
> + static arch_spinlock_t lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
Please dont put statics into the middle of local variables - put them into file
scope in a visible way.
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + if (!arch_spin_trylock(&lock))
> + /*
> + * If there is already a trigger_all_cpu_backtrace()
> + * in progress, don't output double cpu dump infos.
> + */
> + goto out_restore_irq;
>
> cpumask_copy(to_cpumask(backtrace_mask), cpu_online_mask);
>
> @@ -41,6 +51,10 @@ void arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(void)
> break;
> mdelay(1);
> }
> +
> + arch_spin_unlock(&lock);
> +out_restore_irq:
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
>
> static int __kprobes
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/nmi.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/nmi.c
> index a43f71c..5fa8a13 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/nmi.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/nmi.c
> @@ -552,6 +552,16 @@ int do_nmi_callback(struct pt_regs *regs, int cpu)
> void arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(void)
> {
> int i;
> + static arch_spinlock_t lock = __ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + if (!arch_spin_trylock(&lock))
> + /*
> + * If there is already a trigger_all_cpu_backtrace()
> + * in progress, don't output double cpu dump infos.
> + */
> + goto out_restore_irq;
>
> cpumask_copy(to_cpumask(backtrace_mask), cpu_online_mask);
>
> @@ -564,4 +574,8 @@ void arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace(void)
> break;
> mdelay(1);
> }
> +
> + arch_spin_unlock(&lock);
> +out_restore_irq:
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
This spinlock is never actually used as a spinlock - it's a "in progress" flag. Why
not use a flag and test_and_set_bit()?
Also, the irq disabling really needed, will this code ever be called with irqs on?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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