linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@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: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:02:31 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100820150231.GA8628@zhy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100820025749.GB4879@redhat.com>

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:57:49PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> 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.

This one looks good to me.
Thank you Don.

-Yong

> 
> 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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-08-20 15:02 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
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                               ` Yong Zhang [this message]
2010-08-26 10:14                               ` [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog 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=20100820150231.GA8628@zhy \
    --to=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andy.grover@oracle.com \
    --cc=dzickus@redhat.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 \
    /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).