[patch V2 00/24] cpu/hotplug: Convert get_online_cpus() to a percpu_rwsem

[Suzuki K Poulose]

On 26/04/17 09:59, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 07:28:38PM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
>> On 2017-04-25 17:10:37 [+0100], Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> When we bring the secondary CPU online, we detect an erratum that wasn't
>>> present on the boot CPU, and try to enable a static branch we use to
>>> track the erratum. The call to static_branch_enable() blows up as above.
>>
>> this (cpus_set_cap()) seems only to be used used in CPU up part.
>>
>>> I see that we now have static_branch_disable_cpuslocked(), but we don't
>>> have an equivalent for enable. I'm not sure what we should be doing
>>> here.
>>
>> We should introduce static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(). Does this work
>> for you (after s/static_branch_enable/static_branch_enable_cpuslocked/
>> in cpus_set_cap()) ?:
>
> The patch you linked worked for me, given the below patch for arm64 to
> make use of static_branch_enable_cpuslocked().
>
> Catalin/Will, are you happy for this to go via the tip tree with the
> other hotplug locking changes?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> ---->8----
> From 03c98baf0a9fcdfb87145bfb3f108d49a721dad6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:46:47 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: cpufeature: use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked()
>
> Recently, the hotplug locking was conveted to use a percpu rwsem. Unlike
> the existing {get,put}_online_cpus() logic, this can't nest.
> Unfortunately, in arm64's secondary boot path we can end up nesting via
> static_branch_enable() in cpus_set_cap() when we detect an erratum.
>
> This leads to a stream of messages as below, where the secondary
> attempts to schedule befroe it has been fully onlined. As the CPU

nit: s/befroe/before/

> orchsetrating the onlining holds the rswem, this hangs the system.
s/orchsetrating/orchestrating/

>
> [    0.250334] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/1/0/0x00000002
> [    0.250337] Modules linked in:
> [    0.250346] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 4.11.0-rc7-next-20170424 #2
> [    0.250349] Hardware name: ARM Juno development board (r1) (DT)
> [    0.250353] Call trace:
> [    0.250365] [<ffff000008088510>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x238
> [    0.250371] [<ffff00000808880c>] show_stack+0x14/0x20
> [    0.250377] [<ffff00000839d854>] dump_stack+0x9c/0xc0
> [    0.250384] [<ffff0000080e3540>] __schedule_bug+0x50/0x70
> [    0.250391] [<ffff000008932ecc>] __schedule+0x52c/0x5a8
> [    0.250395] [<ffff000008932f80>] schedule+0x38/0xa0
> [    0.250400] [<ffff000008935e8c>] rwsem_down_read_failed+0xc4/0x108
> [    0.250407] [<ffff0000080fe8e0>] __percpu_down_read+0x100/0x118
> [    0.250414] [<ffff0000080c0b60>] get_online_cpus+0x70/0x78
> [    0.250420] [<ffff0000081749e8>] static_key_enable+0x28/0x48
> [    0.250425] [<ffff00000808de90>] update_cpu_capabilities+0x78/0xf8
> [    0.250430] [<ffff00000808d14c>] update_cpu_errata_workarounds+0x1c/0x28
> [    0.250435] [<ffff00000808e004>] check_local_cpu_capabilities+0xf4/0x128
> [    0.250440] [<ffff00000808e894>] secondary_start_kernel+0x8c/0x118
> [    0.250444] [<000000008093d1b4>] 0x8093d1b4
>
> We only call cpus_set_cap() in the secondary boot path, where we know
> that the rwsem is held by the thread orchestrating the onlining. Thus,
> we can use the new static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() in cpus_set_cap(),
> avoiding the above.

Correction, we could call cpus_set_cap() from setup_cpu_features()
for updating the system global capabilities, where we may not hold the
cpu_hotplug_lock. So we could end up calling static_branch_enable_cpuslocked()
without actually holding the lock. Should we do a cpu_hotplug_begin/done in
setup_cpu_feature_capabilities ? I agree it doesn't look that nice. Thoughts ?

Suzuki

> 		
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com>
> Reported-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
> Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy at linutronix.de>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
> Cc: Suzuki Poulose <suzuki,poulose at arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index f31c48d..349b5cd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static inline void cpus_set_cap(unsigned int num)
>  			num, ARM64_NCAPS);
>  	} else {
>  		__set_bit(num, cpu_hwcaps);
> -		static_branch_enable(&cpu_hwcap_keys[num]);
> +		static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&cpu_hwcap_keys[num]);
>  	}
>  }
>
>