From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Antonio Barbalace <antoniob@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: 3.0.10-rt27 arch/arm/kernel/smp.c bug
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:29:12 -0500
Message-ID: <20120118092912.77420k7p4wwjg37c@webmail.vt.edu>
References: <20120113141757.12301lfyl3g6enad@webmail.vt.edu>
 <1326861125.17534.74.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8;
 DelSp="Yes";
 format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Return-path: <linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:47955 "EHLO
	lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757609Ab2ARO3O (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:29:14 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1326861125.17534.74.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Steve,

the problem always happen putting the cpu to sleep on ARM OMAP  
platform (I am currently using a Pandaboard), i.e. after
echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online

Thanks a lot for your help,
Antonio

---

Quoting Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>:

> Hi Antonio,
>
> On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 14:17 -0500, Antonio Barbalace wrote:
>> I would like to report the following bug that is not still solved in
>> the current 3.0.14 ver.
>>
>> [  300.459960] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
>> kernel/rtm5
>> [  300.459991] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 9, name:  
>> migration/1
>> [  300.459991] 1 lock held by migration/1/9:
>> [  300.459991]  #0:  (tasklist_lock){++++..}, at: [<c0064fe8>]
>> __cpu_disable+0x0
>> [  300.460021] irq event stamp: 1887
>> [  300.460052] hardirqs last  enabled at (1886): [<c04e5878>]
>> _raw_spin_unlock_8
>> [  300.460052] hardirqs last disabled at (1887): [<c00efd10>]
>> stop_machine_cpu_4
>> [  300.460083] softirqs last  enabled at (0): [<c009f628>]
>> copy_process+0x3b4/00
>> [  300.460113] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<  (null)>]   (null)
>> [  300.460144] [<c00670e4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf4) from
>> [<c04e4c88>] (__rt)
>> [  300.460174] [<c04e4c88>] (__rt_spin_lock+0x18/0x2c) from
>> [<c04e51e0>] (rt_re)
>> [  300.460174] [<c04e51e0>] (rt_read_lock+0x54/0x68) from [<c0064fe8>]
>> (__cpu_d)
>> [  300.460235] [<c0064fe8>] (__cpu_disable+0xdc/0x170) from
>> [<c04d4b7c>] (take_)
>> [  300.460235] [<c04d4b7c>] (take_cpu_down+0xc/0x30) from [<c00efd28>]
>> (stop_ma)
>> [  300.460235] [<c00efd28>] (stop_machine_cpu_stop+0xd8/0x114) from
>> [<c00efad4>)
>> [  300.460266] [<c00efad4>] (cpu_stopper_thread+0xb8/0x1ac) from
>> [<c00c29f8>] ()
>> [  300.460327] [<c00c29f8>] (kthread+0x88/0x90) from [<c0060914>]
>> (kernel_threa)
>> [  300.464385] CPU1: shutdown
>>
>> This is due to the following arch/arm/kernel/smp.c @ __cpu_disable code:
>>
>> 169         read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>> 170         for_each_process(p) {
>> 171                 if (p->mm)
>> 172                         cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(p->mm));
>> 173         }
>> 174         read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
>>
>> I am not a rt expert, do you have any clue on how to solve this problem?
>
> Hmm, I'll need to look at this code deeper. The read_lock() in -rt can
> sleep, and this is being called to shutdown a CPU, which I'm sure
> disables interrupts along the way.
>
> What did you do to cause this? Does this happen when you take CPU 1
> offline?
>
> -- Steve
>
>
>