linux-kernel - Re: [Regression 3.4] tick_broadcast_mask is not restored after a CPU has been offline/onlined

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120731111832.435b8bd9@feng-i7>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:18:32 +0800
From:	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:	<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mail List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Regression 3.4] tick_broadcast_mask is not restored after a
 CPU has been offline/onlined

Hi Paul,

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:42:18 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:08:47AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:07:47PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > Hi Paul,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:39:13 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:15:59PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > 
> > > > > When I debugged a suspend/resume bug, I found that
> > > > > tick_broadcast_mask is not restored for a CPU after it is
> > > > > offline/onlined since kernel 3.4, while it's fine for 3.3.
> > > > 
> > > > Could you please try 3.5?
> > > 
> > > Yes, it's the same for 3.5
> > 
> > Thank you for checking, Feng.
> > 
> > Len, the comment above the change says:
> > 
> > 	/*
> > 	 * FIXME:  Design the ACPI notification to make it once per
> > 	 * system instead of once per-cpu.  This condition is a hack
> > 	 * to make the code that updates C-States be called once.
> > 	 */
> > 
> > Is it time for this design-level change?  Or is there something obvious
> > that I missed when fixing the smp_processor_id() splat?
> > 
> > I could revert back, but use raw_smp_processor_id() rather than
> > smp_processor_id(), but that feels like papering over a problem rather
> > than fixing it.
> 
> But should papering be appropriate, here is the patch.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul

Just found and have a patch to fix a typo in acpi processor_driver.c, which
could also fix  this tick_broadcast_mask issue.
	
Patch is in https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/30/483 

So I think we don't need this "papering over" patch :)

Thanks,
Feng

> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ACPI: Repair fix to unprotected smp_processor_id()
> 
> Commit 9505626d (ACPI: Fix unprotected smp_processor_id() in
> acpi_processor_cst_has_changed()) introduced a suspend/resume bug.
> This commit therefore introduces a bug-for-bug compatible fix for the
> original problem.
> 
> Reported-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> index 47a8caa..19c151a 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
> @@ -1218,7 +1218,8 @@ int acpi_processor_cst_has_changed(struct
> acpi_processor *pr)
>  	 * to make the code that updates C-States be called once.
>  	 */
>  
> -	if (pr->id == 0 && cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver) {
> +	if (raw_smp_processor_id() == 0 &&
> +	    cpuidle_get_driver() == &acpi_idle_driver) {
>  
>  		cpuidle_pause_and_lock();
>  		/* Protect against cpu-hotplug */
> 
--
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/