From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Sven Schnelle Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/idle: Fix arch_cpu_idle() vs tracing References: <20201120114145.197714127@infradead.org> <20201120114925.594122626@infradead.org> <20201130210003.GA40619@roeck-us.net> <20201201110209.GQ3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 12:56:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20201201110209.GQ3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (Peter Zijlstra's message of "Tue, 1 Dec 2020 12:02:09 +0100") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Guenter Roeck , rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, mingo@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, will@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Hi Peter, Peter Zijlstra writes: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:00:03PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:41:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > We call arch_cpu_idle() with RCU disabled, but then use >> > local_irq_{en,dis}able(), which invokes tracing, which relies on RCU. >> > >> > Switch all arch_cpu_idle() implementations to use >> > raw_local_irq_{en,dis}able() and carefully manage the >> > lockdep,rcu,tracing state like we do in entry. >> > >> > (XXX: we really should change arch_cpu_idle() to not return with >> > interrupts enabled) >> > >> >> Has this patch been tested on s390 ? Reason for asking is that it causes >> all my s390 emulations to crash. Reverting it fixes the problem. > > My understanding is that it changes the error on s390. Previously it > would complain about the local_irq_enable() in arch_cpu_idle(), now it > complains when taking an interrupt during idle. I looked into adding the required functionality for s390, but the code we would need to add to entry.S is rather large - as you noted we would have to duplicate large portions of irqentry_enter() into our code. Given that s390 was fine before that patch, can you revert it and submit it again during the next merge window? Thanks Sven