All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: smp: Fix the CPU hotplug race with scheduler.
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:57:01 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DFF3C95.1080903@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110620121939.GI2082@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On 6/20/2011 5:49 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 05:21:48PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On 6/20/2011 5:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

[...]

>>
>> Any pointers on the other question about "why we need to enable
>> interrupts before the CPU is ready?"
>
> To ensure that things like the delay loop calibration and twd calibration
> can run, though that looks like it'll run happily enough with the boot
> CPU updating jiffies.
>
I guessed it and had same point as above. Calibration will still
work.

> However, I'm still not taking your patch because I believe its just
> papering over the real issue, which is not as you describe.
>
> You first need to work out why the spinlock lockup detection is firing
> after just 61us rather than the full 1s and fix that.
>
This is possibly because of my script which doesn't wait for 1
second.

> You then need to work out whether you really do have spinlock lockup,
> and if so, why.  Implementing trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() may help to
> find out what CPU#0 is doing, though we can only do that with IRQs on,
> and so would be fragile.
>
> We can test whether CPU#0 is going off to do something else while CPU#1
> is being brought up, by adding a preempt_disable() / preempt_enable()
> in __cpu_up() to prevent the wait-for-cpu#1-online being preempted by
> other threads - I suspect you'll still see spinlock lockup on the
> xtime seqlock on CPU#1 though.  That would suggest a coherency issue.
>
> Finally, how are you provoking this - and what kernel configuration are
> you using?
Latest mainline kernel with omap2plus_defconfig and below simple script
to trigger the failure.

-------------
while true
do
echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
done


Regards
Santosh

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH] ARM: smp: Fix the CPU hotplug race with scheduler.
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:57:01 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DFF3C95.1080903@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110620121939.GI2082@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On 6/20/2011 5:49 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 05:21:48PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On 6/20/2011 5:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

[...]

>>
>> Any pointers on the other question about "why we need to enable
>> interrupts before the CPU is ready?"
>
> To ensure that things like the delay loop calibration and twd calibration
> can run, though that looks like it'll run happily enough with the boot
> CPU updating jiffies.
>
I guessed it and had same point as above. Calibration will still
work.

> However, I'm still not taking your patch because I believe its just
> papering over the real issue, which is not as you describe.
>
> You first need to work out why the spinlock lockup detection is firing
> after just 61us rather than the full 1s and fix that.
>
This is possibly because of my script which doesn't wait for 1
second.

> You then need to work out whether you really do have spinlock lockup,
> and if so, why.  Implementing trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() may help to
> find out what CPU#0 is doing, though we can only do that with IRQs on,
> and so would be fragile.
>
> We can test whether CPU#0 is going off to do something else while CPU#1
> is being brought up, by adding a preempt_disable() / preempt_enable()
> in __cpu_up() to prevent the wait-for-cpu#1-online being preempted by
> other threads - I suspect you'll still see spinlock lockup on the
> xtime seqlock on CPU#1 though.  That would suggest a coherency issue.
>
> Finally, how are you provoking this - and what kernel configuration are
> you using?
Latest mainline kernel with omap2plus_defconfig and below simple script
to trigger the failure.

-------------
while true
do
echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
done


Regards
Santosh

  reply	other threads:[~2011-06-20 12:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-06-20  9:23 [RFC PATCH] ARM: smp: Fix the CPU hotplug race with scheduler Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20  9:23 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20  9:23 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20  9:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20  9:50   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20  9:50   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 10:14   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 10:14     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 10:28     ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 10:28       ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 10:35       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 10:35         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 10:45         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 10:45           ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 11:42           ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 11:42             ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 10:44       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 10:44         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 10:47         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 10:47           ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 11:13           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 11:13             ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 11:25             ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 11:25               ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 11:40               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 11:40                 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 11:51                 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 11:51                   ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 12:19                   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 12:19                     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 12:27                     ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2011-06-20 12:27                       ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 12:57                       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 12:57                         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 14:23                 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 14:23                   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 14:54                   ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 14:54                     ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 15:01                     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 15:01                       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 15:10                       ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 15:10                         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-21  9:08                     ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-21  9:08                       ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-21 10:00                       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-21 10:00                         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-21 10:17                         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-21 10:17                           ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-21 10:19                           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-21 10:19                             ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-21 10:21                             ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-21 10:21                               ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-21 10:26                               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-21 10:26                                 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-21 20:16                                 ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-21 20:16                                   ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-21 20:16                                   ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-21 23:10                                   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-21 23:10                                     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-22  0:06                                     ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-22  0:06                                       ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-22  0:06                                       ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-22 10:06                                       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-22 10:06                                         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-20 10:19   ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 10:19     ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-20 10:19     ` Santosh Shilimkar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4DFF3C95.1080903@ti.com \
    --to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.