Re: [PULL] cpumask tree

[Mike Travis]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> i suspect it's:
>>>>
>>>> | commit 2d22bd5e74519854458ad372a89006e65f45e628
>>>> | Author: Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx>
>>>> | Date:   Wed Dec 31 18:08:46 2008 -0800
>>>> |
>>>> |     x86: cleanup remaining cpumask_t code in microcode_core.c
>>>>
>>>> as the microcode is loaded during CPU onlining.
>>> yep, that's the bad one. Should i revert it or do you have a safe fix in 
>>> mind?
>>>
>>> 	Ingo
>> Probably revert for now.  There are a few more following patches that 
>> also use 'work_on_cpu' so a better (more global?) fix should be used.
>>
>> Any thought on using a recursive lock for cpu-hotplug-lock?  (At least 
>> for get_online_cpus()?)
> 
> but the problem has nothing to do with self-recursion. Take a look at the 
> lockdep warning i posted (also below) - the locks are simply taken in the 
> wrong order.
> 
> your change adds this cpu_hotplug.lock usage:
> 
> [   43.652000] -> #1 (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}:
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8027a7c0>] __lock_acquire+0xf10/0x1360
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8027aca9>] lock_acquire+0x99/0xd0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff809b5e4a>] __mutex_lock_common+0xaa/0x450
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff809b62cf>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3f/0x50
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff802516ba>] get_online_cpus+0x3a/0x50
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff802648dc>] work_on_cpu+0x6c/0xc0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8022b2a2>] mc_sysdev_add+0x92/0xa0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8050a800>] sysdev_driver_register+0xb0/0x140
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8163c792>] microcode_init+0xb2/0x13b
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8020a041>] do_one_initcall+0x41/0x180
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8162e6cb>] kernel_init+0x145/0x19d
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff802146aa>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> 
> which nests the inside sysdev_drivers_lock - which is wrong 
> [sysdev_drivers_lock is a pretty lowlevel lock that generally nests inside 
> the CPU hotplug lock].
> 
> If you want to use work_on_cpu() it should be done on a higher level, so 
> that sysdev_drivers_lock is taken after the hotplug lock.
> 
> 	Ingo

Ok, thanks, I will look in that direction.

Mike

> 
> [   43.376051] lockdep: fixing up alternatives.
> [   43.380007] SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
> [   43.616014] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
> [   43.620068] CPU1 attaching NULL sched-domain.
> [   43.644482] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
> [   43.648264] 
> [   43.648265] =======================================================
> [   43.652000] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [   43.652000] 2.6.28-05081-geeff031-dirty #37
> [   43.652000] -------------------------------------------------------
> [   43.652000] S99local/1238 is trying to acquire lock:
> [   43.652000]  (sysdev_drivers_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8050a52d>] sysdev_unregister+0x1d/0x80
> [   43.652000] 
> [   43.652000] but task is already holding lock:
> [   43.652000]  (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff802515d7>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x27/0x60
> [   43.652000] 
> [   43.652000] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [   43.652000] 
> [   43.652000] 
> [   43.652000] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [   43.652000] 
> [   43.652000] -> #1 (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}:
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8027a7c0>] __lock_acquire+0xf10/0x1360
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8027aca9>] lock_acquire+0x99/0xd0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff809b5e4a>] __mutex_lock_common+0xaa/0x450
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff809b62cf>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3f/0x50
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff802516ba>] get_online_cpus+0x3a/0x50
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff802648dc>] work_on_cpu+0x6c/0xc0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8022b2a2>] mc_sysdev_add+0x92/0xa0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8050a800>] sysdev_driver_register+0xb0/0x140
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8163c792>] microcode_init+0xb2/0x13b
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8020a041>] do_one_initcall+0x41/0x180
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8162e6cb>] kernel_init+0x145/0x19d
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff802146aa>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> [   43.652000] 
> [   43.652000] -> #0 (sysdev_drivers_lock){--..}:
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8027a89c>] __lock_acquire+0xfec/0x1360
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8027aca9>] lock_acquire+0x99/0xd0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff809b5e4a>] __mutex_lock_common+0xaa/0x450
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff809b62cf>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3f/0x50
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8050a52d>] sysdev_unregister+0x1d/0x80
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff809af9d1>] mce_cpu_callback+0xce/0x101
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff809bbb75>] notifier_call_chain+0x65/0xa0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff8026d696>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x20
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff80964a00>] _cpu_down+0x240/0x350
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff80964b8b>] cpu_down+0x7b/0xa0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff80966268>] store_online+0x48/0xa0
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff80509e90>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x30
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff80335ddf>] sysfs_write_file+0xcf/0x140
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff802dc1f7>] vfs_write+0xc7/0x150
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff802dc375>] sys_write+0x55/0x90
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffff802133ca>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [   43.652000]        [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> [   43.652000] 
> [   43.652000] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   43.652000] 
> [   43.652000] 3 locks held by S99local/1238:
> [   43.652000]  #0:  (&buffer->mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80335d58>] sysfs_write_file+0x48/0x140
> [   43.652000]  #1:  (cpu_add_remove_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80964b3f>] cpu_down+0x2f/0xa0
> [   43.652000]  #2:  (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff802515d7>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x27/0x60
> [   43.652000] 
> [   43.652000] stack backtrace:
> [   43.652000] Pid: 1238, comm: S99local Not tainted 2.6.28-05081-geeff031-dirty #37
> [   43.652000] Call Trace:
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff80277f24>] print_circular_bug_tail+0xa4/0x100
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff8027a89c>] __lock_acquire+0xfec/0x1360
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff8027aca9>] lock_acquire+0x99/0xd0
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff8050a52d>] ? sysdev_unregister+0x1d/0x80
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff809b5e4a>] __mutex_lock_common+0xaa/0x450
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff8050a52d>] ? sysdev_unregister+0x1d/0x80
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff8050a52d>] ? sysdev_unregister+0x1d/0x80
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff809b62cf>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3f/0x50
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff8050a52d>] sysdev_unregister+0x1d/0x80
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff809af9d1>] mce_cpu_callback+0xce/0x101
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff809bbb75>] notifier_call_chain+0x65/0xa0
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff8026d696>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x20
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff80964a00>] _cpu_down+0x240/0x350
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff809b4763>] ? wait_for_common+0xe3/0x1b0
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff80964b8b>] cpu_down+0x7b/0xa0
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff80966268>] store_online+0x48/0xa0
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff80509e90>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x30
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff80335ddf>] sysfs_write_file+0xcf/0x140
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff802dc1f7>] vfs_write+0xc7/0x150
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff802dc375>] sys_write+0x55/0x90
> [   43.652000]  [<ffffffff802133ca>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [   43.652104] device: 'msr1': device_unregister
> [   43.656005] PM: Removing info for No Bus:msr1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/