From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, mce: stop calling del_timer_sync() from interrupt
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 10:48:29 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DFAB26D.6050202@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110616140915.GA5065@gere.osrc.amd.com>
(2011/06/16 23:09), Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 04:28:35PM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
>> Use of on_each_cpu() results in calling the function passed as the
>> argument on interrupt context.
>
> in
>
>> Calling del_timer_sync() from interrupt context can cause deadlock
>> if it interrupts the target timer running.
>>
>> MCE code has some such misuse of del_timer_sync() in parts for sysfs
>> file; bank*, check_interval, cmci_disabled and ignore_ce.
>> Fortunately these files are rare-used but you will be warned on write.
>
> So, you're saying you're hitting the WARN_ON(in_irq()) in
> del_timer_sync() ?
Yes. It is terrible that there are simultaneous WARN_ON() * online_cpus.
I should have write something clear about that here in patch description.
>> This patch will fix it.
>
> You could say
>
> "Move timer deletion outside of the interrupt context as a fix"
>
> or something to that effect to make it much more precise what the patch
> is doing.
Sure, I'll update it.
> Patch idea looks fine, see below for some nitpicking :).
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>> index ff1ae9b..77df54f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
>> @@ -1170,6 +1170,17 @@ static void mce_start_timer(unsigned long data)
>> add_timer_on(t, smp_processor_id());
>> }
>>
>> +/* Must not be called from interrupt where del_timer_sync() can deadlock */
>> +static void mce_timer_delete_all(void)
>> +{
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> + if (mce_available(&per_cpu(cpu_info, cpu)))
>> + del_timer_sync(&per_cpu(mce_timer, cpu));
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> static void mce_do_trigger(struct work_struct *work)
>> {
>> call_usermodehelper(mce_helper, mce_helper_argv, NULL, UMH_NO_WAIT);
>> @@ -1768,7 +1779,6 @@ static struct syscore_ops mce_syscore_ops = {
>>
>> static void mce_cpu_restart(void *data)
>> {
>> - del_timer_sync(&__get_cpu_var(mce_timer));
>> if (!mce_available(__this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_info)))
>> return;
>
> I'm wondering, was this actually a bug - the fact that we deleted the
> timer _before_ we do the mce_available() check.
>
> In looking at it a bit more, it looks like mce_restart() is always
> executed on codepaths behind mce_available() checks so the
>
> if (mce_available(...))
> del_timer_sync(...);
>
> part in mce_timer_delete_all could be done without the if-check, no?
Yes, I've noticed it too.
Notable point is that these sysfs files are not created when
!mce_available(). :-P
However it is an entirely different matter than what this patch is
addressed. Just to keep old logic in mce_disable_ce(), I've added
mce_available() in the mce_timer_delete_all().
I think we can remove many redundant if-checks w/ mce_available()
around here and there.
Now I'm writing a patch for that... Please wait.
Thanks,
H.Seto
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-17 1:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-16 7:28 [PATCH] x86, mce: stop calling del_timer_sync() from interrupt Hidetoshi Seto
2011-06-16 14:09 ` Borislav Petkov
2011-06-17 1:48 ` Hidetoshi Seto [this message]
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=4DFAB26D.6050202@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=bp@amd64.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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