[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9xQ8ikvkWjjuw2p@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:10:26 -0800
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Cc: Íñigo Huguet <ihuguet@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, yangbo.lu@....com,
gerhard@...leder-embedded.com, habetsm.xilinx@...il.com,
ecree.xilinx@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, alex.maftei@....com,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Subject: Re: PTP vclock: BUG: scheduling while atomic
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 05:33:15PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 05:02:07PM +0100, Íñigo Huguet wrote:
> > Our QA team was testing PTP vclocks, and they've found this error with sfc NIC/driver:
> > BUG: scheduling while atomic: ptp5/25223/0x00000002
> >
> > The reason seems to be that vclocks disable interrupts with `spin_lock_irqsave` in
> > `ptp_vclock_gettime`, and then read the timecounter, which in turns ends calling to
> > the driver's `gettime64` callback.
>
> The same issue was observed with the ice driver:
> https://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/intel-wired-lan/Week-of-Mon-20221107/030633.html
>
> I tried to fix it generally in the vclock support, but was not
> successful. There was a hint it would be fixed in the driver. I'm not
> sure what is the best approach here.
Can ptp_vclock_gettime use a mutex instead?
Thanks,
Richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists