[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120411.210319.370705937753558953.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: shemminger@...tta.com, mroos@...ux.ee,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: suspicious RCU usage warnings in 3.3.0
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:45:07 -0700
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:18:54PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
>> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:10:04 -0700
>>
>> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:08:37 -0700
>> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hmmm... What CPU family is this running on? From the look of the
>> >> stack, it is sneaking out of idle into softirq without telling RCU.
>> >> This would cause RCU to complain bitterly about being invoked from
>> >> the idle loop -- and RCU ignores CPUs in the idle loop.
>> >>
>> >> Thanx, Paul
>> >
>> > Sun4... Ping David.
>>
>> So is there anything specific I need to do in the sparc64
>> idle loop?
>
> Hmmm... I must confess that I don't immediately see how control
> is passing from cpu_idle() in arch/sparc/kernel/process_64.c to
> __handle_softirq().
>
> But it looks like a simple function call in the call trace:
It's coming from the trap return code path at the end of hardware
interrupt processing, on the IRQ stack.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists