On Friday, February 08, 2013 01:47:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello Sedat
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> With today's Linux-Next I see this warning:
> >>
> >> [ 0.377442] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> [ 0.377452] WARNING: at kernel/smp.c:245
> >> smp_call_function_single+0x146/0x190()
> >> [ 0.377455] Hardware name: 530U3BI/530U4BI/530U4BH
> >> [ 0.377458] Modules linked in:
> >> [ 0.377463] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted
> >> 3.8.0-rc6-next20130208-1-iniza-small #1
> >> [ 0.377467] Call Trace:
> >> [ 0.377473] [<ffffffff8105a5ef>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
> >> [ 0.377479] [<ffffffff81579130>] ? acpi_cpufreq_target+0x2c0/0x2c0
> >> [ 0.377483] [<ffffffff8105a64a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> >> [ 0.377487] [<ffffffff810bb7e6>] smp_call_function_single+0x146/0x190
> >> [ 0.377492] [<ffffffff81579130>] ? acpi_cpufreq_target+0x2c0/0x2c0
> >> [ 0.377496] [<ffffffff810bb881>] smp_call_function_any+0x51/0x100
> >> [ 0.377500] [<ffffffff815788c9>] get_cur_val+0x99/0x130
> >> [ 0.377504] [<ffffffff81579444>] ? acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init+0x2b4/0x6a0
> >> [ 0.377508] [<ffffffff81578db0>] get_cur_freq_on_cpu+0x60/0x80
> >> [ 0.377512] [<ffffffff815795a2>] acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init+0x412/0x6a0
> >> [ 0.377517] [<ffffffff81575bb9>] cpufreq_add_dev+0x2d9/0x4f0
> >> [ 0.377523] [<ffffffff81d44b22>] ? cpufreq_gov_dbs_init+0x2c/0x2c
> >> [ 0.377528] [<ffffffff8145d379>] subsys_interface_register+0x89/0xd0
> >> [ 0.377533] [<ffffffff81573dee>] cpufreq_register_driver+0x8e/0x180
> >> [ 0.377537] [<ffffffff81d44c18>] acpi_cpufreq_init+0xf6/0x1f8
> >> [ 0.377542] [<ffffffff814608e6>] ? platform_driver_register+0x46/0x50
> >> [ 0.377547] [<ffffffff8100206f>] do_one_initcall+0x3f/0x170
> >> [ 0.377553] [<ffffffff81d07029>] kernel_init_freeable+0x13e/0x1cd
> >> [ 0.377560] [<ffffffff81d06895>] ? do_early_param+0x86/0x86
> >> [ 0.377565] [<ffffffff8169cf20>] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80
> >> [ 0.377569] [<ffffffff8169cf2e>] kernel_init+0xe/0xf0
> >> [ 0.377575] [<ffffffff816c722c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> >> [ 0.377578] [<ffffffff8169cf20>] ? rest_init+0x80/0x80
> >> [ 0.377581] ---[ end trace c6ec8280ce20313a ]---
> >>
> >> kernel/smp.c: Line #245 see [1].
> >>
> > Can you please try the following?
> >
> > --- a/kernel/smp.c Fri Feb 8 19:25:32 2013
> > +++ b/kernel/smp.c Fri Feb 8 19:53:14 2013
> > @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, sm
> > * send smp call function interrupt to this cpu and as such deadlocks
> > * can't happen.
> > */
> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_online(this_cpu) && (irqs_disabled() || in_interrupt())
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_online(this_cpu) && irqs_disabled()
> > && !oops_in_progress);
> >
> > if (cpu == this_cpu) {
> > --
>
> NO, it doesn't.
>
> So, you want to partly revert...
>
> commit b29f39c7c3e75a741a7da88244ec707f293ec04c
> "smp: Give WARN()ing if in_interrupt() when calling
> smp_call_function_many()/single()"
>
> ...why not completely?
>
> This patch was in last days Linux-Next and did not cause troubles (AFAICS).
This problem was introduced by some cpufreq changes that have been dropped from
linux-next for now (they are still present in the one you're testing, though).
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
