From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
daniel.thompson@linaro.org, jason@lakedaemon.net,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, jason.wessel@windriver.com,
dianders@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com,
kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net, tglx@linutronix.de,
will@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: Add framework to turn IPI as NMI
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 10:34:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877drypgqb.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201010015855.vksetnj4luft5enc@gabell>
On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:58:55 +0100,
Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > +void ipi_nmi_setup(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + if (!ipi_desc)
> > + return;
>
> ipi_nmi_setup() may be called twice for CPU0:
>
> set_smp_ipi_range => set_smp_ipi_nmi => ipi_nmi_setup
> => ipi_setup => ipi_nmi_setup
>
> Actually, I got the following error message via the second ipi_nmi_setup():
>
> GICv3: Pseudo-NMIs enabled using relaxed ICC_PMR_EL1 synchronisation
> GICv3: Cannot set NMI property of enabled IRQ 8
> genirq: Failed to setup NMI delivery: irq 8
>
> Why don't we have a check to prevent that? Like as:
>
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ipi_desc->percpu_enabled))
> return;
That's definitely the wrong thing to do. prepare_nmi_setup() shouldn't
be called twice, and papering over it isn't acceptable.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com>
Cc: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@linaro.org>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
daniel.thompson@linaro.org, jason@lakedaemon.net,
kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net, dianders@chromium.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jason.wessel@windriver.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: Add framework to turn IPI as NMI
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2020 10:34:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877drypgqb.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201010015855.vksetnj4luft5enc@gabell>
On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:58:55 +0100,
Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > +void ipi_nmi_setup(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + if (!ipi_desc)
> > + return;
>
> ipi_nmi_setup() may be called twice for CPU0:
>
> set_smp_ipi_range => set_smp_ipi_nmi => ipi_nmi_setup
> => ipi_setup => ipi_nmi_setup
>
> Actually, I got the following error message via the second ipi_nmi_setup():
>
> GICv3: Pseudo-NMIs enabled using relaxed ICC_PMR_EL1 synchronisation
> GICv3: Cannot set NMI property of enabled IRQ 8
> genirq: Failed to setup NMI delivery: irq 8
>
> Why don't we have a check to prevent that? Like as:
>
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ipi_desc->percpu_enabled))
> return;
That's definitely the wrong thing to do. prepare_nmi_setup() shouldn't
be called twice, and papering over it isn't acceptable.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-10 9:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-11 13:28 [PATCH v4 0/5] arm64: Add framework to turn an IPI as NMI Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] arm64: Add framework to turn " Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` Sumit Garg
2020-10-10 1:58 ` Masayoshi Mizuma
2020-10-10 1:58 ` Masayoshi Mizuma
2020-10-10 9:34 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2020-10-10 9:34 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-10-10 15:13 ` Masayoshi Mizuma
2020-10-10 15:13 ` Masayoshi Mizuma
2020-10-12 12:19 ` Sumit Garg
2020-10-12 12:19 ` Sumit Garg
2020-10-13 3:23 ` Masayoshi Mizuma
2020-10-13 3:23 ` Masayoshi Mizuma
2020-10-12 12:21 ` Sumit Garg
2020-10-12 12:21 ` Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] irqchip/gic-v3: Enable support for SGIs to act as NMIs Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] arm64: smp: Allocate and setup IPI as NMI Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] arm64: kgdb: Round up cpus using " Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] arm64: ipi_nmi: Add support for NMI backtrace Sumit Garg
2020-09-11 13:28 ` Sumit Garg
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=877drypgqb.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=jason.wessel@windriver.com \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com \
--cc=kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=msys.mizuma@gmail.com \
--cc=sumit.garg@linaro.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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.