From: "Durrant, Paul" <pdurrant@amazon.com>
To: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@eikelenboom.it>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
Paul Durrant <paul@xen.org>,
Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] xen-unstable (4.14 to be): Assertion '!preempt_count()' failed at preempt.c:36
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:35:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <62b58da082e449eb960bada0ea34e3f9@EX13D32EUC003.ant.amazon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <08b761ad-c84b-3dad-2dd1-f9b69b0fe2a7@eikelenboom.it>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xen-devel <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org> On Behalf Of
> Sander Eikelenboom
> Sent: 04 December 2019 21:04
> To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Igor Druzhinin
> <igor.druzhinin@citrix.com>; Paul Durrant <paul@xen.org>
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] xen-unstable (4.14 to be): Assertion
> '!preempt_count()' failed at preempt.c:36
>
> On 04/12/2019 18:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 04.12.2019 18:21, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
> >> On current xen-unstable (4.14 to be) and AMD cpu:
> >>
> >> After rebooting the host, while the guests are starting, I hit the
> assertion below.
> >> xen-staging-4.13 seems fine on the same machine.
> >
> > Nothing between 4.13 RC4 and the tip of staging stands out,
> > so I wonder if you could bisect over this range? Or perhaps
> > someone else sees something I don't see (right now).
> >
> > Jan
>
> Bisection came up with:
>
> commit cd7dedad8209753e0fc8a97e61d04b74912b53dc
> Author: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>
> Date: Fri Nov 15 18:59:30 2019 +0000
>
> passthrough: simplify locking and logging
>
> Dropping the pcidevs lock between calling device_assigned() and
> assign_device() means that the latter has to do the same check as the
> former for no obvious gain. Also, since long running operations under
> pcidevs lock already drop the lock and return -ERESTART periodically
> there
> is little point in immediately failing an assignment operation with
> -ERESTART just because the pcidevs lock could not be acquired (for the
> second time, having already blocked on acquiring the lock in
> device_assigned()).
>
> This patch instead acquires the lock once for assignment (or test
> assign)
> operations directly in iommu_do_pci_domctl() and thus can remove the
> duplicate domain ownership check in assign_device(). Whilst in the
> neighbourhood, the patch also removes some debug logging from
> assign_device() and deassign_device() and replaces it with proper
> error
> logging, which allows error logging in iommu_do_pci_domctl() to be
> removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@citrix.com>
> Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
Going through the code, I notice a missing pcidevs_unlock() in the case of a device already assigned. I fixed it with a bit of re-structuring. Could you try the following patch?
---8<---
diff --git a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
index ced0c28e4f..c7207998a5 100644
--- a/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
+++ b/xen/drivers/passthrough/pci.c
@@ -1696,16 +1696,12 @@ int iommu_do_pci_domctl(
pcidevs_lock();
ret = device_assigned(seg, bus, devfn);
- if ( domctl->cmd == XEN_DOMCTL_test_assign_device )
+ if ( ret && domctl->cmd == XEN_DOMCTL_test_assign_device )
{
- if ( ret )
- {
- printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
- "%04x:%02x:%02x.%u already assigned, or non-existent\n",
- seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn));
- ret = -EINVAL;
- }
- break;
+ printk(XENLOG_G_INFO
+ "%04x:%02x:%02x.%u already assigned, or non-existent\n",
+ seg, bus, PCI_SLOT(devfn), PCI_FUNC(devfn));
+ ret = -EINVAL;
}
---8<---
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-05 8:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-04 17:21 [Xen-devel] xen-unstable (4.14 to be): Assertion '!preempt_count()' failed at preempt.c:36 Sander Eikelenboom
2019-12-04 17:30 ` Jan Beulich
2019-12-04 21:03 ` Sander Eikelenboom
2019-12-05 8:35 ` Durrant, Paul [this message]
2019-12-05 8:43 ` Jan Beulich
2019-12-05 8:47 ` Durrant, Paul
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=62b58da082e449eb960bada0ea34e3f9@EX13D32EUC003.ant.amazon.com \
--to=pdurrant@amazon.com \
--cc=igor.druzhinin@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=linux@eikelenboom.it \
--cc=paul@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).