From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, Qian Cai <cai@redhat.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, kernel-team@android.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:22:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201105222242.GA8842@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <160404559895.1777248.8248643695413627642.b4-ty@kernel.org>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 04:33:25PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:26:14 -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in secondary_start_kernel() is not early
> > enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep
> > splats as follows:
> >
> > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > -----------------------------
> > kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3497 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
> >
> > [...]
>
> Applied to arm64 (for-next/fixes), thanks!
>
> [1/1] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
> https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/ce3d31ad3cac
Hmm, this patch has caused a regression in the case that we fail to
online a CPU because it has incompatible CPU features and so we park it
in cpu_die_early(). We now get an endless spew of RCU stalls because the
core will never come online, but is being tracked by RCU. So I'm tempted
to revert this and live with the lockdep warning while we figure out a
proper fix.
What's the correct say to undo rcu_cpu_starting(), given that we cannot
invoke the full hotplug machinery here? Is it correct to call
rcutree_dying_cpu() on the bad CPU and then rcutree_dead_cpu() from the
CPU doing cpu_up(), or should we do something else?
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, Qian Cai <cai@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, kernel-team@android.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:22:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201105222242.GA8842@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <160404559895.1777248.8248643695413627642.b4-ty@kernel.org>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 04:33:25PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 14:26:14 -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in secondary_start_kernel() is not early
> > enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep
> > splats as follows:
> >
> > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > -----------------------------
> > kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3497 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
> >
> > [...]
>
> Applied to arm64 (for-next/fixes), thanks!
>
> [1/1] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier
> https://git.kernel.org/arm64/c/ce3d31ad3cac
Hmm, this patch has caused a regression in the case that we fail to
online a CPU because it has incompatible CPU features and so we park it
in cpu_die_early(). We now get an endless spew of RCU stalls because the
core will never come online, but is being tracked by RCU. So I'm tempted
to revert this and live with the lockdep warning while we figure out a
proper fix.
What's the correct say to undo rcu_cpu_starting(), given that we cannot
invoke the full hotplug machinery here? Is it correct to call
rcutree_dying_cpu() on the bad CPU and then rcutree_dead_cpu() from the
CPU doing cpu_up(), or should we do something else?
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-05 22:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-28 18:26 [PATCH] arm64/smp: Move rcu_cpu_starting() earlier Qian Cai
2020-10-28 18:26 ` Qian Cai
2020-10-28 21:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-28 21:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-29 9:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-29 9:10 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-29 13:17 ` Qian Cai
2020-10-29 13:17 ` Qian Cai
2020-10-30 8:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-30 8:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-29 14:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-29 14:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-10-30 16:33 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-30 16:33 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-05 22:22 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-11-05 22:22 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-05 23:02 ` Qian Cai
2020-11-05 23:02 ` Qian Cai
2020-11-05 23:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-05 23:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-06 2:15 ` Qian Cai
2020-11-06 2:15 ` Qian Cai
2020-11-06 4:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-06 4:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-11-06 10:37 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-06 10:37 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-06 12:48 ` Qian Cai
2020-11-06 12:48 ` Qian Cai
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=20201105222242.GA8842@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=cai@redhat.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.