[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170309183732.GB13748@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 10:37:32 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clock: Fix smp_processor_id() in preemptible bug
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:31:14AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:24:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:53:06PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > The v4.11-rc1 kernel emits the following splat in some configurations:
> > >
> > > [ 43.681891] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: kworker/3:1/49
> > > [ 43.682511] caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x20
> > > [ 43.682893] CPU: 0 PID: 49 Comm: kworker/3:1 Not tainted 4.11.0-rc1+ #1
> > > [ 43.683382] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> > > [ 43.683497] Workqueue: events __clear_sched_clock_stable
> > > [ 43.683497] Call Trace:
> > > [ 43.683497] dump_stack+0x4f/0x69
> > > [ 43.683497] check_preemption_disabled+0xd9/0xf0
> > > [ 43.683497] debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x20
> > > [ 43.683497] __clear_sched_clock_stable+0x11/0x60
> > > [ 43.683497] process_one_work+0x146/0x430
> > > [ 43.683497] worker_thread+0x126/0x490
> > > [ 43.683497] kthread+0xfc/0x130
> > > [ 43.683497] ? process_one_work+0x430/0x430
> > > [ 43.683497] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
> > > [ 43.683497] ? umh_complete+0x30/0x30
> > > [ 43.683497] ? call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0x12a/0x130
> > > [ 43.683497] ret_from_fork+0x29/0x40
> > > [ 43.689244] sched_clock: Marking unstable (43688244724, 179505618)<-(43867750342, 0)
> > >
> > > This happens because workqueue handlers run with preemption enabled
> > > by default and the new this_scd() function accesses per-CPU variables.
> > > This commit therefore disables preemption across this call to this_scd()
> > > and to the uses of the pointer that it returns. Lightly tested
> > > successfully on x86.
> >
> > Does this also work?
>
> Thank you! I will give it a shot after the other tests complete.
And it does pass light testing. I will hammer it harder this evening.
So please send a formal patch!
Thanx, Paul
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/clock.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/clock.c b/kernel/sched/clock.c
> > index a08795e21628..c63042253b65 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/clock.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/clock.c
> > @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ void clear_sched_clock_stable(void)
> > smp_mb(); /* matches sched_clock_init_late() */
> >
> > if (sched_clock_running == 2)
> > - schedule_work(&sched_clock_work);
> > + schedule_work_on(smp_processor_id(), &sched_clock_work);
> > }
> >
> > void sched_clock_init_late(void)
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists