From: Xiaotian Feng <xtfeng@gmail•com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead•org>
Cc: Sachin Sant <sachinp@in•ibm.com>,
Linux/PPC Development <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs•org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte•hu>,
linux-next@vger•kernel.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel•crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [Next] CPU Hotplug test failures on powerpc
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:57:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7b6bb4a50912152357m75aea5dfl6fe063d716517baf@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1260947890.8023.1281.camel@laptop>
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead•org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 12:24 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
>> Xiaotian Feng wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sachin Sant <sachinp@in•ibm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Xiaotian Feng wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Does this testcase hotplug cpu 0 off?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> No, i don't think so. It skips cpu0 during online/offline
>> >> process.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Then how could this happen ? Looks like cpu 0 is offline ....
>> > 0:mon> <4>IRQ 17 affinity broken off cpu 0
>> > <4>IRQ 18 affinity broken off cpu 0
>> > <4>IRQ 19 affinity broken off cpu 0
>> > <4>IRQ 264 affinity broken off cpu 0
>> > <4>cpu 0 (hwid 0) Ready to die...
>> > <7>clockevent: decrementer mult[83126e97] shift[32] cpu[0]
>> >
>> Sorry i was looking at only one script. Looking more closely
>> at the test there are 6 different sub tests. The rest of the
>> tests do seem to hotplug CPU 0.
>
> Ooh, cute, so you can actually hotplug cpu 0.. no wonder that didn't get
> exposed on x86.
>
> Still, the only time cpu_active_mask should not be equal to
> cpu_online_mask is when we're in the middle of a hotplug, we clear
> active early and set it late, but its all done under the hotplug mutex,
> so we can at most have 1 cpu differences with online mask.
>
Could follow be possible? We know there's cpu 0 and cpu 1,
offline cpu1 > done
offline cpu0 > false
consider this in cpu_down code,
int __ref cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
{
<snip>
set_cpu_active(cpu, false); // here, we set cpu 0 to inactive
synchronize_sched();
err = _cpu_down(cpu, 0);
out:
<snip>
}
Then in _cpu_down code:
static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen)
{
<snip>
if (num_online_cpus() == 1) // if we're trying to
offline cpu0, num_online_cpus will be 1
return -EBUSY; // after return back
to cpu_down, we didn't change cpu 0 back to active
if (!cpu_online(cpu))
return -EINVAL;
if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&old_allowed, GFP_KERNEL))
return -ENOMEM;
<snip>
}
Then cpu 0 is not active, but online, then we try to offline cpu1, .......
This can not be exposed because x86 does not have
/sys/devices/system/cpu0/online.
I guess following patch fixes this bug.
---
diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
index 291ac58..21ddace 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -199,14 +199,18 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int
tasks_frozen)
.hcpu = hcpu,
};
- if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
+ if (num_online_cpus() == 1) {
+ set_cpu_active(cpu, true);
return -EBUSY;
+ }
if (!cpu_online(cpu))
return -EINVAL;
- if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&old_allowed, GFP_KERNEL))
+ if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&old_allowed, GFP_KERNEL)) {
+ set_cpu_active(cpu, true);
return -ENOMEM;
+ }
cpu_hotplug_begin();
err = __raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DOWN_PREPARE | mod,
> Unless of course, I messed up, which appears to be rather likely given
> these problems ;-)
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-16 7:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-11 10:53 [Next] CPU Hotplug test failures on powerpc Sachin Sant
2009-12-14 2:48 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-14 4:37 ` Sachin Sant
2009-12-14 10:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-14 11:11 ` Sachin Sant
2009-12-14 12:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-14 21:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-12-15 9:44 ` Sachin Sant
2009-12-15 10:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-15 13:47 ` Sachin Sant
2009-12-15 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 5:38 ` Sachin Sant
2009-12-16 7:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 6:56 ` Xiaotian Feng
2009-12-16 6:25 ` Xiaotian Feng
2009-12-16 6:41 ` Sachin Sant
2009-12-16 6:45 ` Xiaotian Feng
2009-12-16 6:54 ` Sachin Sant
2009-12-16 7:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-16 7:57 ` Xiaotian Feng [this message]
2009-12-16 8:24 ` Sachin Sant
2009-12-16 9:07 ` Xiaotian Feng
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=7b6bb4a50912152357m75aea5dfl6fe063d716517baf@mail.gmail.com \
--to=xtfeng@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=benh@kernel$(echo .)crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs$(echo .)org \
--cc=mingo@elte$(echo .)hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead$(echo .)org \
--cc=sachinp@in$(echo .)ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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