linux-kernel - Re: Crashes in arm qemu emulations due to 'cpufreq: governor: Replace timers with utilization ...'

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: <20160215190700.GN10826@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 15 Feb 2016 19:07:00 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: Crashes in arm qemu emulations due to 'cpufreq: governor:
 Replace timers with utilization ...'

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:54:26PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
> > Given that OMAP3 is a UP system, there is zero chance that it has
> > registered the magic hook that delivers IPIs (its interrupt controller
> > is not even capable of doing so).
> >
> > I don't really know the context, but IPIs on a UP system seem at best odd.
> 
> That would explain it, thanks.
> 
> So it looks like we should always use irq_work_queue() on UP even if
> CONFIG_SMP is set, shouldn't we?

irq_work_queue_on() doesn't check whether 'cpu' is the CPU that we're
running on.  This is a problem where we want to be able to run a kernel
built for SMP on a UP system.

I guess the question is whether irq_work_queue_on() is buggy, or whether
our implementation of arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() is buggy.
Should arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() do something on UP systems,
if so what?

We don't have IPIs on UP systems, so we can't raise any interrupts.
So, should we call generic_smp_call_function_interrupt() directly
from it?

Some clues would be good...

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.