commit: 84cc8fd2fe65866e49d70b38b3fdf7219dd92fe0 From: Michael Bohan <mbohan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:19:25 -0700 Subject: hrtimer: Don't reinitialize a cpu_base lock on CPU_UP The current code makes the assumption that a cpu_base lock won't be held if the CPU corresponding to that cpu_base is offline, which isn't always true. If a hrtimer is not queued, then it will not be migrated by migrate_hrtimers() when a CPU is offlined. Therefore, the hrtimer's cpu_base may still point to a CPU which has subsequently gone offline if the timer wasn't enqueued at the time the CPU went down. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but a cpu_base's lock is blindly reinitialized each time a CPU is brought up. If a CPU is brought online during the period that another thread is performing a hrtimer operation on a stale hrtimer, then the lock will be reinitialized under its feet, and a SPIN_BUG() like the following will be observed: <0>[ 28.082085] BUG: spinlock already unlocked on CPU#0, swapper/0/0 <0>[ 28.087078] lock: 0xc4780b40, value 0x0 .magic: dead4ead, .owner: <none>/-1, .owner_cpu: -1 <4>[ 42.451150] [<c0014398>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x120) from [<c0269220>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x44/0xdc) <4>[ 42.460430] [<c0269220>] (do_raw_spin_unlock+0x44/0xdc) from [<c071b5bc>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) <4>[ 42.469632] [<c071b5bc>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x8/0x30) from [<c00a9ce0>] (__hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x1e4/0x4f8) <4>[ 42.479521] [<c00a9ce0>] (__hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x1e4/0x4f8) from [<c00aa014>] (hrtimer_start+0x20/0x28) <4>[ 42.489247] [<c00aa014>] (hrtimer_start+0x20/0x28) from [<c00e6190>] (rcu_idle_enter_common+0x1ac/0x320) <4>[ 42.498709] [<c00e6190>] (rcu_idle_enter_common+0x1ac/0x320) from [<c00e6440>] (rcu_idle_enter+0xa0/0xb8) <4>[ 42.508259] [<c00e6440>] (rcu_idle_enter+0xa0/0xb8) from [<c000f268>] (cpu_idle+0x24/0xf0) <4>[ 42.516503] [<c000f268>] (cpu_idle+0x24/0xf0) from [<c06ed3c0>] (rest_init+0x88/0xa0) <4>[ 42.524319] [<c06ed3c0>] (rest_init+0x88/0xa0) from [<c0c00978>] (start_kernel+0x3d0/0x434) As an example, this particular crash occurred when hrtimer_start() was executed on CPU #0. The code locked the hrtimer's current cpu_base corresponding to CPU #1. CPU #0 then tried to switch the hrtimer's cpu_base to an optimal CPU which was online. In this case, it selected the cpu_base corresponding to CPU #3. Before it could proceed, CPU #1 came online and reinitialized the spinlock corresponding to its cpu_base. Thus now CPU #0 held a lock which was reinitialized. When CPU #0 finally ended up unlocking the old cpu_base corresponding to CPU #1 so that it could switch to CPU #3, we hit this SPIN_BUG() above while in switch_hrtimer_base(). CPU #0 CPU #1 ---- ---- ... <offline> hrtimer_start() lock_hrtimer_base(base #1) ... init_hrtimers_cpu() switch_hrtimer_base() ... ... raw_spin_lock_init(&cpu_base->lock) raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock) ... <spin_bug> Solve this by statically initializing the lock. Signed-off-by: Michael Bohan <mbohan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1363745965-23475-1-git-send-email-mbohan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- kernel/hrtimer.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/hrtimer.c b/kernel/hrtimer.c index cc47812..14be27f 100644 --- a/kernel/hrtimer.c +++ b/kernel/hrtimer.c @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct hrtimer_cpu_base, hrtimer_bases) = { + .lock = __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(hrtimer_bases.lock), .clock_base = { { @@ -1642,8 +1643,6 @@ static void __cpuinit init_hrtimers_cpu(int cpu) struct hrtimer_cpu_base *cpu_base = &per_cpu(hrtimer_bases, cpu); int i; - raw_spin_lock_init(&cpu_base->lock); - for (i = 0; i < HRTIMER_MAX_CLOCK_BASES; i++) { cpu_base->clock_base[i].cpu_base = cpu_base; timerqueue_init_head(&cpu_base->clock_base[i].active); -- 1.7.10.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html