spin_until_cond() will wait until nmi_ipi_busy == false, and
nmi_ipi_lock_start() does not seem to change nmi_ipi_busy, so there is
no way this while will ever repeat.
Replace this 'while' by an 'if', so it does not look like it can repeat.
Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <[email protected]>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
index ea6adbf6a221..7c904d6fb4d2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ static int __smp_send_nmi_ipi(int cpu, void (*fn)(struct pt_regs *),
return 0;
nmi_ipi_lock_start(&flags);
- while (nmi_ipi_busy) {
+ if (nmi_ipi_busy) {
nmi_ipi_unlock_end(&flags);
spin_until_cond(!nmi_ipi_busy);
nmi_ipi_lock_start(&flags);
--
2.24.1
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 05:37:52PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> spin_until_cond() will wait until nmi_ipi_busy == false, and
> nmi_ipi_lock_start() does not seem to change nmi_ipi_busy, so there is
> no way this while will ever repeat.
>
> Replace this 'while' by an 'if', so it does not look like it can repeat.
Nack, it can repeat. The scenario is that cpu A is in this code,
inside spin_until_cond(); cpu B has previously set nmi_ipi_busy, and
cpu C is also waiting for nmi_ipi_busy to be cleared, like cpu A.
When cpu B clears nmi_ipi_busy, both cpu A and cpu C will see that and
will race inside nmi_ipi_lock_start(). One of them, say cpu C, will
take the lock and proceed to set nmi_ipi_busy and then call
nmi_ipi_unlock(). Then the other cpu (cpu A) will then take the lock
and return from nmi_ipi_lock_start() and find nmi_ipi_busy == true.
At that point it needs to go through the while loop body once more.
Paul.
On Fri, 2020-03-27 at 08:40 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 05:37:52PM -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > spin_until_cond() will wait until nmi_ipi_busy == false, and
> > nmi_ipi_lock_start() does not seem to change nmi_ipi_busy, so there is
> > no way this while will ever repeat.
> >
> > Replace this 'while' by an 'if', so it does not look like it can repeat.
>
> Nack, it can repeat. The scenario is that cpu A is in this code,
> inside spin_until_cond(); cpu B has previously set nmi_ipi_busy, and
> cpu C is also waiting for nmi_ipi_busy to be cleared, like cpu A.
> When cpu B clears nmi_ipi_busy, both cpu A and cpu C will see that and
> will race inside nmi_ipi_lock_start(). One of them, say cpu C, will
> take the lock and proceed to set nmi_ipi_busy and then call
> nmi_ipi_unlock(). Then the other cpu (cpu A) will then take the lock
> and return from nmi_ipi_lock_start() and find nmi_ipi_busy == true.
> At that point it needs to go through the while loop body once more.
>
> Paul.
Ok, got it.
Thanks for explaining Paul!