WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
Russell King - ARM Linux
linux at armlinux.org.uk
Sun Dec 10 13:54:33 PST 2017
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 01:39:30PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 07:34:39PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 11:07:27AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:00:12PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > +Paul
> > > >
> > > > Annoyingly, it looks like calling "complete()" from a dying CPU is
> > > > triggering the RCU usage warning. From what I remember, this is an
> > > > old problem, and we still have no better solution for this other than
> > > > to persist with the warning.
> > >
> > > I thought that this issue was resolved with tglx's use of IPIs from
> > > the outgoing CPU. Or is this due to an additional complete() from the
> > > ARM code? If so, could it also use tglx's IPI trick?
> >
> > I don't think it was tglx's IPI trick, I've had code sitting in my tree
> > for a while for it, but it has its own set of problems which are not
> > resolvable:
> >
> > 1. it needs more IPIs than we have available on all platforms
>
> OK, I will ask the stupid question... Is it possible to multiplex
> the IPIs, for example, by using smp_call_function_single()?
>
> > 2. there's some optional locking in the GIC driver that cause problems
> > for the cpu dying path.
>
> On this, I must plead ignorance.
>
> > The concensus last time around was that the IPI solution is a non-
> > starter, so the seven year proven-reliable solution (disregarding the
> > RCU warning) persists because I don't think anyone came up with a
> > better solution.
>
> Seven years already? Sigh, I don't have the heart to check because
> I wouldn't want to find out that it has actually been longer. ;-)
*Sigh* thanks for what you just said, you do realise that you've just
said that you don't believe what I write in emails? FFS. Is there
any point in continuing to discuss this if that's the case? Really?
commit 3c030beabf937b1d3b4ecaedfd1fb2f1e2aa0c70
Author: Russell King <rmk+kernel at arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue Nov 30 11:07:35 2010 +0000
ARM: CPU hotplug: move cpu_killed completion to core code
We always need to wait for the dying CPU to reach a safe state before
taking it down, irrespective of the requirements of the platform.
Move the completion code into the ARM SMP hotplug code rather than
having each platform re-implement this.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel at arm.linux.org.uk>
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
index a30c4094db3a..8c81ff9b3732 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
#include <linux/irq.h>
#include <linux/percpu.h>
#include <linux/clockchips.h>
+#include <linux/completion.h>
#include <asm/atomic.h>
#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
@@ -238,12 +239,20 @@ int __cpu_disable(void)
return 0;
}
+static DECLARE_COMPLETION(cpu_died);
+
/*
* called on the thread which is asking for a CPU to be shutdown -
* waits until shutdown has completed, or it is timed out.
*/
void __cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
{
+ if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&cpu_died, msecs_to_jiffies(5000))) {
+ pr_err("CPU%u: cpu didn't die\n", cpu);
+ return;
+ }
+ printk(KERN_NOTICE "CPU%u: shutdown\n", cpu);
+
if (!platform_cpu_kill(cpu))
printk("CPU%u: unable to kill\n", cpu);
}
@@ -263,9 +272,12 @@ void __ref cpu_die(void)
local_irq_disable();
idle_task_exit();
+ /* Tell __cpu_die() that this CPU is now safe to dispose of */
+ complete(&cpu_died);
+
/*
* actual CPU shutdown procedure is at least platform (if not
- * CPU) specific
+ * CPU) specific.
*/
platform_cpu_die(cpu);
So, 30th Nov 2010 to 10th Dec 2017 is seven years, one week and three
days to be exact.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list