[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210914210627.c92374b3726a22014b359dbd@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 21:06:27 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Wang Qing <wangqing@...o.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Santosh Sivaraj <santosh@...six.org>,
Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] kernel/watchdog_hld: clarify the condition in
hardlockup_detector_event_create()
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:51:00 +0800 Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com> wrote:
> hardlockup_detector_event_create() indirectly calls
> kmem_cache_alloc_node(), which is blockable.
>
> So here, the really planned context is is_percpu_thread().
>
> ...
>
> --- a/kernel/watchdog_hld.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog_hld.c
> @@ -165,10 +165,13 @@ static void watchdog_overflow_callback(struct perf_event *event,
>
> static int hardlockup_detector_event_create(void)
> {
> - unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + unsigned int cpu;
> struct perf_event_attr *wd_attr;
> struct perf_event *evt;
>
> + /* This function plans to execute in cpu bound kthread */
> + BUG_ON(!is_percpu_thread());
Can we avoid adding the BUG()? Find a way to emit a WARNing and then
permit the kernel to continue?
> + cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> wd_attr = &wd_hw_attr;
> wd_attr->sample_period = hw_nmi_get_sample_period(watchdog_thresh);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists