[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54865D65.8030906@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 10:24:37 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <tj@...nel.org>,
<fengguang.wu@...el.com>, <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
<yuyang.du@...el.com>, <lkp@...org>, <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
<pjt@...gle.com>, <bsegall@...gle.com>, <daniel@...ascale.com>,
<subbaram@...eaurora.org>, <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
<sp@...era.io>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kthread: kthread_bind fails to enforce CPU affinity (fixes
kernel BUG at kernel/smpboot.c:134!)
On 12/08/2014 09:54 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 14:27:01 +1100
> Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org> wrote:
>
>> I have a busy ppc64le KVM box where guests sometimes hit the infamous
>> "kernel BUG at kernel/smpboot.c:134!" issue during boot:
>>
>> BUG_ON(td->cpu != smp_processor_id());
>>
>> Basically a per CPU hotplug thread scheduled on the wrong CPU. The oops
>> output confirms it:
>>
>> CPU: 0
>> Comm: watchdog/130
>>
>> The issue is in kthread_bind where we set the cpus_allowed mask, but do
>> not touch task_thread_info(p)->cpu. The scheduler assumes the previously
>> scheduled CPU is in the cpus_allowed mask, but in this case we are
>> moving a thread to another CPU so it is not.
>>
>
> Does this happen always on boot up, and always with the watchdog thread?
>
> I followed the logic that starts the watchdog threads.
>
> watchdog_enable_all_cpus()
> smpboot_register_percpu-thread() {
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) { ... }
>
> Where watchdog_enable_all_cpus() can be called by
> lockup_detector_init() before SMP is started, but also by
> proc_dowatchdog() which is called by the sysctl commands (after SMP is
> up and running).
>
> I noticed there's no "get_online_cpus()" anywhere, although the
> unregister_percpu_thread() has it. Is it possible that we created a
> thread on a CPU that wasn't fully online yet?
>
> Perhaps the following patch is needed? Even if this isn't the solution
> to this bug, it is probably needed as watchdog_enable_all_cpus() can be
> called after boot up too.
>
> -- Steve
Hi, Steven, tglx
See this https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/30/804
"[PATCH] smpboot: add missing get_online_cpus() when register"
Thanks,
Lai
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smpboot.c b/kernel/smpboot.c
> index eb89e1807408..60d35ac5d3f1 100644
> --- a/kernel/smpboot.c
> +++ b/kernel/smpboot.c
> @@ -279,6 +279,7 @@ int smpboot_register_percpu_thread(struct smp_hotplug_thread *plug_thread)
> unsigned int cpu;
> int ret = 0;
>
> + get_online_cpus();
> mutex_lock(&smpboot_threads_lock);
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> ret = __smpboot_create_thread(plug_thread, cpu);
> @@ -291,6 +292,7 @@ int smpboot_register_percpu_thread(struct smp_hotplug_thread *plug_thread)
> list_add(&plug_thread->list, &hotplug_threads);
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&smpboot_threads_lock);
> + put_online_cpus();
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(smpboot_register_percpu_thread);
> --
> 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/
> .
>
--
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