From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751355AbXLCUOa (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:14:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750754AbXLCUOX (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:14:23 -0500 Received: from neopsis.com ([213.239.204.14]:41011 "EHLO matterhorn.dbservice.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750733AbXLCUOW (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:14:22 -0500 Message-ID: <47546385.1010708@dbservice.com> Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:13:57 +0100 From: Tomas Carnecky User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071118) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arjan van de Ven CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org Subject: Re: WARNING: smp_call_function_single() and smp_call_function_mask() References: <4752703B.10305@dbservice.com> <20071201084833.63263489@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <20071201084833.63263489@laptopd505.fenrus.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Neopsis-MailScanner-Information: Neopsis MailScanner using ClamAV and Spaassassin X-Neopsis-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Neopsis-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-2.261, required 5, autolearn=spam, AWL 0.24, BAYES_00 -2.60, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.10) X-MailScanner-From: tom@dbservice.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:43:39 +0100 > Tomas Carnecky wrote: > >> WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp_64.c:427 smp_call_function_single() >> WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp_64.c:397 smp_call_function_mask() >> >> dmesg and config attached. >> >> I'm getting about three of each at boot. I'm running: >> commit e1cca7e8d484390169777b423a7fe46c7021fec1 >> Date: Thu Nov 29 16:25:29 2007 -0800 >> which is the latest git as of yesterday plus a one (unrelated) debug >> statement patch in usb uhci. >> >> There was a similar bug report after 2.6.23-rc8-mm was released. >> Though there seems to be a fundamental problem with how people use >> smp_call_function*() [1]. And this can just as well be another >> incarnation of it. >> >> Is that easy enough to fix or do I need to bisect (it didn't happen in >> 2.6.24-rc3)? >> > > this appears to be a bug in the acpi code, to be exact in > processor_throttling.c file, function > acpi_processor_set_throttling_ptc(); it disables interrupts and then > appears to do a cross-cpu IPI to set the state. Well... we can't do > that due to deadlock reasons (you can't do IPI's with interrupts off or > you can get a very nice deadlock with the cpu that you IPI trying to > do the same thing to you). > I updated the kernel today (to 1a2edea9aff48...) and the warnings are gone. tom