From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
Andy Grover <andy.grover@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:57:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100820025749.GB4879@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100818130156.43a183d9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:01:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The surprise new requirement that touch_nmi_watchdog() be called from
> non-preemptible code does seem to make sense IMO. It's hard to see why
> anyone would be touching the watchdog unless he's spinning in irqs-off
> code. Except, of course, when we have a utility function which can be
> called from wither irqs-on or irqs-off: acpi_os_stall().
>
> That being said, it's not good to introduce new API requirements by
> accident! An audit of all callers should first be performed, at least.
>
>
> The surprise new requirement that touch_softlockup_watchdog() be called
> from non-preemptible code doesn't make sense IMO. If I have a piece of
> code in the kernel which I expect to sit in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state
> for three minutes waiting for my egg to boil, I should be able to do
> that and I should be able to touch the softlockup detector without
> needing to go non-preemptible.
Ok, so here is my patch that syncs the touch_*_watchdog back in line with
the old semantics. Hopefully this will undo any harm I caused.
------------cut -->---------------------------
>From b372e821c804982438db090db6b4a2f753c78091 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:48:26 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [lockup detector] sync touch_*_watchdog back to old semantics
During my rewrite, the semantics of touch_nmi_watchdog and
touch_softlockup_watchdog changed enough to break some drivers
(mostly over preemptable regions).
This change brings those touch_*_watchdog functions back in line
to how they used to work.
Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
---
kernel/watchdog.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
index 613bc1f..99e35a2 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ static void __touch_watchdog(void)
void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
{
- __get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = 0;
+ __raw_get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
@@ -142,7 +142,14 @@ void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
#ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
{
- __get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true;
+ if (watchdog_enabled) {
+ unsigned cpu;
+
+ for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
+ if (per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, cpu) != true)
+ per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, cpu) = true;
+ }
+ }
touch_softlockup_watchdog();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
@@ -430,6 +437,9 @@ static int watchdog_enable(int cpu)
wake_up_process(p);
}
+ /* if any cpu succeeds, watchdog is considered enabled for the system */
+ watchdog_enabled = 1;
+
return 0;
}
@@ -452,9 +462,6 @@ static void watchdog_disable(int cpu)
per_cpu(softlockup_watchdog, cpu) = NULL;
kthread_stop(p);
}
-
- /* if any cpu succeeds, watchdog is considered enabled for the system */
- watchdog_enabled = 1;
}
static void watchdog_enable_all_cpus(void)
--
1.7.2.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-20 2:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-13 10:21 fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-16 8:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-16 13:34 ` Don Zickus
2010-08-16 13:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-16 14:08 ` [PATCH] fix BUG " Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-16 14:30 ` Don Zickus
2010-08-17 4:27 ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17 2:59 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-08-17 3:16 ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17 8:39 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-17 9:05 ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17 9:24 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-17 9:37 ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17 10:28 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-17 12:48 ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17 10:39 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-17 12:56 ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-17 13:13 ` Don Zickus
2010-08-18 2:48 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-08-18 20:01 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-19 2:27 ` Don Zickus
2010-08-20 2:57 ` Don Zickus [this message]
2010-08-20 3:42 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-20 12:34 ` Don Zickus
2010-08-26 17:17 ` acpi_os_stall() and touch_nmi_watchdog() (was Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog) Len Brown
2010-08-20 15:02 ` [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog Yong Zhang
2010-08-26 10:14 ` Maxim Levitsky
2010-08-26 14:40 ` Don Zickus
2010-08-17 7:56 ` [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog (v2) Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-08-16 14:12 ` fix BUG: using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog Don Zickus
2010-08-16 14:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-16 14:06 ` Yong Zhang
2010-08-18 19:33 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-18 21:44 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2010-09-22 9:00 ` [PATCH] avoid second smp_processor_id() call in __touch_watchdog Sergey Senozhatsky
2010-09-22 14:41 ` Don Zickus
2010-09-22 16:27 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-09-22 16:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-22 16:47 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-09-24 19:34 ` Don Zickus
2010-09-25 17:43 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
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=20100820025749.GB4879@redhat.com \
--to=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andy.grover@oracle.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=yong.zhang0@gmail.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).