[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5199C169.7060504@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:23:37 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: NOHZ: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:123 native_smp_send_reschedule,
round 2
On 05/20/2013 12:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:16:33AM +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> I suppose the reason is that the cpu we passed to
>> mod_delayed_work_on() has a chance to become offline before we
>> disabled irq, what about check it before send resched ipi? like:
>
> I think this is only addressing the symptoms - what we should be doing
> instead is asking ourselves why are we even scheduling work on a cpu if
> the machine goes offline?
>
> I don't know though who should be responsible for killing all that
> work - the workqueue itself or the guy who created it, i.e. cpufreq
> governor...
So there are two questions here:
1. Is gov_queue_work() want to queue the work on offline cpu?
2. Is mod_delayed_work_on() allow offline cpu?
I guess both should be false?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Hmmm.
>
--
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