linux-kernel - Re: NOHZ: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:123 native_smp_send

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: <CAKohponk-FQpHOx407FL63ZCYVgz2C-ScvZQBQFVxddbL+fS=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 May 2013 12:42:08 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"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>, rjw@...k.pl,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NOHZ: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:123 native_smp_send_reschedule,
 round 2

Hi Michael,

I haven't followed this mail chain earlier and saw this mail only as I am
added in cc now. I probably have answers to few questions here:

On 20 May 2013 12:36, Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 02:58 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 05/20/2013 02:47 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:23:37PM +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>> On 05/20/2013 12:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>>> So there are two questions here:
>>>> 1. Is gov_queue_work() want to queue the work on offline cpu?

No. We are only working with online cpus now in cpufreq core and governors.

>> Besides, the cpu gov_queue_work() is using 'policy->cpus' which seems to
>> be updated during UP DOWN notify, I think they are supposed to be online.
>>
>> But we need expert in cpufreq to confirm all these...

I confirm this. policy->cpus only contains online cpus.. and
policy->related_cpus
always contain online+offline cpus.

> And I guess this may help to reduce the chance to trigger WARN:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> index 443442d..0f96013 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ void gov_queue_work(struct dbs_data *dbs_data,
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>         if (!all_cpus) {
>                 __gov_queue_work(smp_processor_id(), dbs_data, delay);
>         } else {
> -               for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus)
> +               for_each_cpu_and(i, policy->cpus, cpu_online_mask)
>                         __gov_queue_work(i, dbs_data, delay);
>         }
>  }

Not required at all... policy->cpus is guaranteed to have only online cpus.
--
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/