[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z1c+5dI7fibEZZ/h@Asurada-Nvidia>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 11:03:01 -0800
From: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
To: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
CC: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, Krishna Reddy
<vdumpa@...dia.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy
<robin.murphy@....com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Jonathan Hunter
<jonathanh@...dia.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
<linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] iommu/tegra241-cmdqv: do not use smp_processor_id in
preemptible context
On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 10:01:14AM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote:
> During boot some of the calls to tegra241_cmdqv_get_cmdq() will happen
> in preemptible context. As this function calls smp_processor_id(), if
> CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is enabled, these calls will trigger a series of
> "BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible" backtraces.
Confirmed the BUG prints. Should we CC stable tree?
> As tegra241_cmdqv_get_cmdq() only calls smp_processor_id() to use the
> CPU number as a factor to balance out traffic on cmdq usage, it is safe
> to use raw_smp_processor_id() here.
>
> v2: Sebastian helped identify that the problem was not exclusive to kernels
> with PREEMPT_RT enabled. The delta between v1 and v2 is the description.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Reviewed-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Tested-by: Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>
Thanks
Nicolin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists