public inbox for linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
Cc: Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug report] Warning when hot-add an ACPI0004 device.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:33:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52439CFE.4030501@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1380147885.14046.40.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>

Hi Toshi,

On 09/26/2013 06:24 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 10:31 +0000, Gu Zheng wrote:
>> Hi Toshi,
>>
>> On 09/12/2013 11:11 PM, Toshi Kani wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 13:00 +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
>>>> Hi Rafael, Toshi,
>>>>
>>>> When we hot-add an ACPI0004 device, we got the following warning:
>>>>
>>>> 	acpi ACPI0004:01: Attempt to re-insert
>>>>
>>>> The ACPI0004 device is a System Board in Fujitsu server, which has two
>>>> numa nodes (processors and memory).
>>>>
>>>> It seems that we reserved the ACPI_NOTIFY_DEVICE_CHECK event twice in
>>>> acpi_hotplug_notify_cb().
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to bisect, this happens after the following commit:
>>>>
>>>>  From 68a67f6c78b80525d9b3c6672e7782de95e56a83 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>>> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>>> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 23:05:55 +0100
>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ACPI / container: Use common hotplug code
>>>>
>>>> Switch the ACPI container driver to using common device hotplug code
>>>> introduced previously.  This reduces the driver down to a trivial
>>>> definition and registration of a struct acpi_scan_handler object.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/acpi/container.c | 146 
>>>> ++++-------------------------------------------
>>>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm now investigating this problem. If you have any idea about why this
>>>> happens, please let me know.
>>>
>>> With the above change, container devices use the common notify handler,
>>> which logs the warning message in question when it receives device check
>>> twice on a same device.  Before the change, the container-specific
>>> notify handler did not log this message in the same case (but considered
>>> it as an eject request).
>>>
>>> So, I suspect that you are getting device check twice regardless of the
>>> kernel change.  Can you check KERN_DEBUG messages to see if that is the
>>> case?  The notify handler logs all events with KERN_DEBUG.
>>
>> Follow your suggestion, we confirm that it really received ACPI_NOTIFY_
>> DEVICE_CHECK event*twice*, but the original ACPI container driver only
>> received once, does the common device hotplug code introduce another device
>> check? any idea?
>>
>> Container uses common device hotplug code:
>> [  142.937724] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth8: link becomes ready
>> [  674.975575] ACPI: \_SB_.LSB1: ACPI_NOTIFY_DEVICE_CHECK event          <<<<
> 
> acpi_hotplug_notify_cb() calls acpi_os_hotplug_execute() to schedule to
> run acpi_scan_device_check() asynchronously and returns immediately.
> This leads acpi_ev_asynch_enable_gpe() to run next, which clears this
> GPE (if level triggered) and re-enable GPE.

Thanks for your explanation, it's really the routine you mentioned above.

> 
>> [  674.991604] ACPI: \_SB_.LSB1: ACPI_NOTIFY_DEVICE_CHECK event		 <<<<	
> 
> It appears that re-enabling GPE caused this GPE to show up again as a
> spurious interrupt.

Yes, it is.

> 
>> [  675.613990] ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [UNC2] (domain 0000 [bus fd])
>> [  675.684970] acpi PNP0A03:01: ACPI _OSC support notification failed, disabling PCIe ASPM
>> [  675.780957] acpi PNP0A03:01: Unable to request _OSC control (_OSC support mask: 0x08)
>> [  675.874806] ACPI _OSC control for PCIe not granted, disabling ASPM
>> [  675.949005] pci_bus 0000:fd: Allocating resources
>> [  675.960145] ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [UNC3] (domain 0000 [bus fc])
>> [  676.031176] acpi PNP0A03:02: ACPI _OSC support notification failed, disabling PCIe ASPM
>> [  676.127129] acpi PNP0A03:02: Unable to request _OSC control (_OSC support mask: 0x08)
>> [  676.220943] ACPI _OSC control for PCIe not granted, disabling ASPM
>> [  676.295019] pci_bus 0000:fc: Allocating resources
>>
>> Original ACPI container driver:
>> [ 1526.122933] Container driver received ACPI_NOTIFY_DEVICE_CHECK event <<<<
> 
> In the original code, container_notify_cb() proceeds the device check
> handling and then calls _OST on the same thread.  It then re-enable GPE.

According to our debug, the whole routine was executed on the same thread.

> This ordering seems to avoid the spurious interrupt on your platform.

It seems that, but it is very strange.

> 
>> [ 1526.800646] ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [UNC2] (domain 0000 [bus fd])
>> [ 1526.871682] acpi PNP0A03:01: ACPI _OSC support notification failed, disabling PCIe ASPM
>> [ 1526.967878] acpi PNP0A03:01: Unable to request _OSC control (_OSC support mask: 0x08)
>> [ 1527.061891] ACPI _OSC control for PCIe not granted, disabling ASPM
>> [ 1527.136036] pci_bus 0000:fd: Allocating resources
>> [ 1527.150747] ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [UNC3] (domain 0000 [bus fc])
>> [ 1527.221821] acpi PNP0A03:02: ACPI _OSC support notification failed, disabling PCIe ASPM
>> [ 1527.317738] acpi PNP0A03:02: Unable to request _OSC control (_OSC support mask: 0x08)
>> [ 1527.411795] ACPI _OSC control for PCIe not granted, disabling ASPM
>> [ 1527.485917] pci_bus 0000:fc: Allocating resources
> 
> The GPE handler code in ACPICA is the same.  So, the issue could be due
> to either;
>  - The firmware expects _OST before re-enabling GPE, or
>  - The timing of re-enabling GPE was too soon on your platform.

Thanks for your directions.

> 
> Can you check with your firmware team to see if this might be the case?

I'll confirm this.

Best regards,
Gu

> 
> Thanks,
> -Toshi
> 
> 

      reply	other threads:[~2013-09-26  2:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-09-12  5:00 [Bug report] Warning when hot-add an ACPI0004 device Tang Chen
2013-09-12 15:11 ` Toshi Kani
2013-09-25 10:31   ` Gu Zheng
2013-09-25 14:36     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-26  2:33       ` Gu Zheng
2013-09-25 22:24     ` Toshi Kani
2013-09-26  2:33       ` Gu Zheng [this message]

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=52439CFE.4030501@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=toshi.kani@hp.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox