[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F16C60B.4030903@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:45:55 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...ndz.org>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
gouders@...bocholt.fh-gelsenkirchen.de,
Marcos Souza <marcos.mage@...il.com>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, justinmattock@...il.com,
Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: x86/mce: machine check warning during poweroff
On 01/18/2012 08:47 AM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 15:22 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Thanks for the patch, but unfortunately it doesn't fix the problem!
>> Exactly the same stack traces are seen during a CPU Hotplug stress test.
>> (I didn't even have to stress it - it is so fragile that just a script
>> to offline all cpus except the boot cpu was good enough to reproduce the
>> problem easily.)
>
> hmm, that's weird. with the patch, sched_ilb_notifier() should have
> cleared the cpu going offline from the nohz.idle_cpus_mask. And this
> should have happened after that cpu is removed from active mask. So
> no-one else should add that cpu back to the nohz.idle_cpus_mask and this
> should prevent the issue from happening.
>
> I could reproduce the problem easily with out the patch but when I
> applied the patch I couldn't recreate the issue. Srivatsa, can you
> please re-check the kernel you tested indeed has the fix?
>
> re-Reviewing the code/patch also doesn't give me a hint.
>
>> I have a few questions regarding the synchronization with CPU Hotplug.
>> What guarantees that the code which selects and IPIs the new ilb is totally
>> race-free with respect to CPU hotplug and we will never IPI an offline CPU?
>
> So, nohz_balancer_kick() gets called only from interrupts disabled.
> During that time (from selecting the ilb_cpu to sending the IPI), no cpu
> can go offline. As the offline happens from the stop-machine process
> context with interrupts disabled.
>
> Only thing we need to make sure is the offlined cpu shouldn't be part of
> the nohz.idle_cpus_mask and for post 3.2 code, posted patch ensures
> that.
>
> For 3.2 and before, when a cpu exits tickless idle, it gets removed from
> the nohz.idle_cpus_mask (and also from the nohz.load_balancer). And if
> the cpu is not in the active mask (while going offline), subsequent
> calls to select_nohz_load_balancer() ensures that the cpu going down
> doesn't update the nohz structures. So I thought 3.2 shouldn't exhibit
> this problem.
>
>
>> (As demonstrated above, this issue is in 3.2-rc7
>> as well.)
>
> hmm, don't think we ran into this before 3.2. So, what am I missing from
> the above? I will try to reproduce it on 3.2 too.
>
I tested again on 3.2. I didn't hit those warnings (IPI to offline cpus).
It happens only in the post-3.2 kernel.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
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