From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751188AbdJCMOA (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:14:00 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:53107 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750846AbdJCMN7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:13:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 14:13:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Michael Ellerman cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov , Andrew Morton , Sebastian Siewior , Nicholas Piggin , Don Zickus , Chris Metcalf , Ulrich Obergfell , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [patch V2 22/29] lockup_detector: Make watchdog_nmi_reconfigure() two stage In-Reply-To: <87o9pocvjq.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> Message-ID: References: <20170912193654.321505854@linutronix.de> <20170912194147.862865570@linutronix.de> <87d165dqew.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <87o9pocvjq.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Thomas Gleixner writes: > >> The first call is new because previously watchdog_nmi_reconfigure() > >> wasn't called from softlockup_reconfigure_threads(). > > > > Hmm, don't you have the same problem with CPU hotplug or do you just get > > lucky because the hotplug callback in your code is ordered vs. the > > softlockup thread hotplug callback in a way that this does not hit? > > I don't see it with CPU hotplug. > > AFAICS that's because softlockup_reconfigure_threads() isn't called for > CPU hotplug. Unless there's a path I'm missing? As I said in the other reply, I assumed that its called via watchdog_nmi_enable(cpu), but that's a weak function which is not implemented on power. So no issue. > >> I'm not sure what the easiest fix is. One option would be to just drop > >> the WARN_ON, it's just there for paranoia AFAICS. > > > > The straight forward way is to make use of the new probe function. Patch > > below. > > Hmm, I tried that patch, it makes the warning go away. But then I > triggered a deliberate hard lockup and got nothing. > > Then I went back to the existing code (in linux-next), and I still get > no warning from a deliberate hard lockup. > > So seems there may be some more gremlins. Will test more in the morning. Hrm. That's weird. I'll have a look and send a proper patch series on top of next. Thanks, tglx