>From 48bbf44a96676ce6f520a408378730c976e9a11e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [PARISC] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96
On PA-RISC (and presumably any other arch that doesn't implement its own
arch_cpu_idle), we get this spurious boot warning. The problem is that the
way the idle task is selected initially using the weak arch_cpu_idle() in
idle.c causes us to enter this place once with interrupts enabled. Fix this
by disabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code.
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
---
Thomas, I'm getting a bit impatient: this is a clear bug in the cpu idle
code and we keep getting reports of this as a boot crash on parisc. If
you don't push it through your tree, I'll take it through the parisc
one.
diff --git a/kernel/cpu/idle.c b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
index d5585f5..0a4d11e 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ void __weak arch_cpu_idle_dead(void) { }
void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void)
{
cpu_idle_force_poll = 1;
+ local_irq_enable();
}
/*
On 06/14/2013 11:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>From 48bbf44a96676ce6f520a408378730c976e9a11e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] [PARISC] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96
>
> On PA-RISC (and presumably any other arch that doesn't implement its own
> arch_cpu_idle), we get this spurious boot warning. The problem is that the
> way the idle task is selected initially using the weak arch_cpu_idle() in
> idle.c causes us to enter this place once with interrupts enabled. Fix this
> by disabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code.
Is this changelog correct? It looks to me like you are enabling
interrupts down there.
David Daney
>
> Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> Thomas, I'm getting a bit impatient: this is a clear bug in the cpu idle
> code and we keep getting reports of this as a boot crash on parisc. If
> you don't push it through your tree, I'll take it through the parisc
> one.
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu/idle.c b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
> index d5585f5..0a4d11e 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu/idle.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ void __weak arch_cpu_idle_dead(void) { }
> void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void)
> {
> cpu_idle_force_poll = 1;
> + local_irq_enable();
Here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> }
>
> /*
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 12:11 -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 06/14/2013 11:55 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>From 48bbf44a96676ce6f520a408378730c976e9a11e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
> > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] [PARISC] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96
> >
> > On PA-RISC (and presumably any other arch that doesn't implement its own
> > arch_cpu_idle), we get this spurious boot warning. The problem is that the
> > way the idle task is selected initially using the weak arch_cpu_idle() in
> > idle.c causes us to enter this place once with interrupts enabled. Fix this
> > by disabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code.
>
> Is this changelog correct? It looks to me like you are enabling
> interrupts down there.
Yes, obvious typo, sorry. The WARN_ON check is for disabled interrupts
the fix is to enable them.
James
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
> >From 48bbf44a96676ce6f520a408378730c976e9a11e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] [PARISC] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96
>
> On PA-RISC (and presumably any other arch that doesn't implement its own
> arch_cpu_idle), we get this spurious boot warning. The problem is that the
> way the idle task is selected initially using the weak arch_cpu_idle() in
> idle.c causes us to enter this place once with interrupts enabled. Fix this
> by disabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code.
>
> Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
What's the stable tag for? This code got merged in 3,10, so stable is
totally irrelevant.
> Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> Thomas, I'm getting a bit impatient: this is a clear bug in the cpu idle
> code and we keep getting reports of this as a boot crash on parisc. If
> you don't push it through your tree, I'll take it through the parisc
> one.
Hold your breath. I was not even CC'ed on the original patch and I
admit that I ignored the patch which starts with [PARISC].
If the subject line would have started with [idle], [core/idle] I
definitely would have paid attention.
Aside of that the rest of the subject line is just annoyingly
sloppy. We do not fix a WARNING. That's not what this patch is
about. The patch fixes a problem which got introduced with the idle
rework, period.
I'll pick it up and fix the changelog.
Thanks,
tglx
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu/idle.c b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
> index d5585f5..0a4d11e 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu/idle.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ void __weak arch_cpu_idle_dead(void) { }
> void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void)
> {
> cpu_idle_force_poll = 1;
> + local_irq_enable();
> }
>
> /*
>
>
>
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > >From 48bbf44a96676ce6f520a408378730c976e9a11e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
> > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] [PARISC] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96
> >
> > On PA-RISC (and presumably any other arch that doesn't implement its own
> > arch_cpu_idle), we get this spurious boot warning. The problem is that the
> > way the idle task is selected initially using the weak arch_cpu_idle() in
> > idle.c causes us to enter this place once with interrupts enabled. Fix this
> > by disabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
>
> What's the stable tag for? This code got merged in 3,10, so stable is
> totally irrelevant.
>
> > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Thomas, I'm getting a bit impatient: this is a clear bug in the cpu idle
> > code and we keep getting reports of this as a boot crash on parisc. If
> > you don't push it through your tree, I'll take it through the parisc
> > one.
>
> Hold your breath. I was not even CC'ed on the original patch and I
> admit that I ignored the patch which starts with [PARISC].
>
> If the subject line would have started with [idle], [core/idle] I
> definitely would have paid attention.
>
> Aside of that the rest of the subject line is just annoyingly
> sloppy. We do not fix a WARNING. That's not what this patch is
> about. The patch fixes a problem which got introduced with the idle
> rework, period.
>
> I'll pick it up and fix the changelog.
And it needs fixing. It says:
"... way the idle task is selected initially using the weak
arch_cpu_idle() in idle.c causes us to enter this place once with
interrupts enabled. Fix this by disabling interrupts in the weak
arch_cpu_idle() code."
And the patch does:
void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void)
{
cpu_idle_force_poll = 1;
+ local_irq_enable();
}
Instead of bullying around you might consider to read
Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
Thanks,
tglx
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 22:39 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > >From 48bbf44a96676ce6f520a408378730c976e9a11e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
> > Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] [PARISC] fix WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96
> >
> > On PA-RISC (and presumably any other arch that doesn't implement its own
> > arch_cpu_idle), we get this spurious boot warning. The problem is that the
> > way the idle task is selected initially using the weak arch_cpu_idle() in
> > idle.c causes us to enter this place once with interrupts enabled. Fix this
> > by disabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
>
> What's the stable tag for? This code got merged in 3,10, so stable is
> totally irrelevant.
Hm, OK, it's been so long I'm misremembering which kernel versions need
it.
> > Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Thomas, I'm getting a bit impatient: this is a clear bug in the cpu idle
> > code and we keep getting reports of this as a boot crash on parisc. If
> > you don't push it through your tree, I'll take it through the parisc
> > one.
>
> Hold your breath. I was not even CC'ed on the original patch and I
> admit that I ignored the patch which starts with [PARISC].
Oh, you were ... I made sure of that. It's thread with subject
Re: [PATCH] parisc: avoid WARNING: at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96
You were cc'd from the one dated Wed, 08 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700
> If the subject line would have started with [idle], [core/idle] I
> definitely would have paid attention.
>
> Aside of that the rest of the subject line is just annoyingly
> sloppy. We do not fix a WARNING. That's not what this patch is
> about. The patch fixes a problem which got introduced with the idle
> rework, period.
>
> I'll pick it up and fix the changelog.
Sure, whatever you think is best ... Given Linus' current mood I think
leading with a description of the actual user visible problem being
fixed is a good way to make sure he doesn't get annoyed, but it's your
call.
James
Commit-ID: 29ce3785b22da47c49f4ef6e14b9014fa5dee261
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/29ce3785b22da47c49f4ef6e14b9014fa5dee261
Author: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
AuthorDate: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:05:34 -0700
Committer: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
CommitDate: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:01:05 +0200
idle: Enable interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() implementation
PARISC bootup triggers the warning at kernel/cpu/idle.c:96. That's
caused by the weak arch_cpu_idle() implementation, which is provided
to avoid that architectures implement idle_poll over and over.
The switchover to polling mode happens in the first call of the weak
arch_cpu_idle() implementation, but that code fails to reenable
interrupts and therefor triggers the warning.
Fix this by enabling interrupts in the weak arch_cpu_idle() code.
[ tglx: Made the changelog match the patch ]
Signed-off-by: James Bottomley <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1371236142.2726.43.camel@dabdike
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
---
kernel/cpu/idle.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/kernel/cpu/idle.c b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
index bf2ee1a..e695c0a 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu/idle.c
@@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ void __weak arch_cpu_idle_dead(void) { }
void __weak arch_cpu_idle(void)
{
cpu_idle_force_poll = 1;
+ local_irq_enable();
}
/*