[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yt9dh7p54u50.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 12:56:27 +0100
From: Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, rafael@...nel.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mingo@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, will@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/idle: Fix arch_cpu_idle() vs tracing
Hi Peter,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:00:03PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:41:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > We call arch_cpu_idle() with RCU disabled, but then use
>> > local_irq_{en,dis}able(), which invokes tracing, which relies on RCU.
>> >
>> > Switch all arch_cpu_idle() implementations to use
>> > raw_local_irq_{en,dis}able() and carefully manage the
>> > lockdep,rcu,tracing state like we do in entry.
>> >
>> > (XXX: we really should change arch_cpu_idle() to not return with
>> > interrupts enabled)
>> >
>>
>> Has this patch been tested on s390 ? Reason for asking is that it causes
>> all my s390 emulations to crash. Reverting it fixes the problem.
>
> My understanding is that it changes the error on s390. Previously it
> would complain about the local_irq_enable() in arch_cpu_idle(), now it
> complains when taking an interrupt during idle.
I looked into adding the required functionality for s390, but the code
we would need to add to entry.S is rather large - as you noted we would
have to duplicate large portions of irqentry_enter() into our code.
Given that s390 was fine before that patch, can you revert it and submit
it again during the next merge window?
Thanks
Sven
Powered by blists - more mailing lists