[1.] One line summary of the problem: "BUG: sleeping function called
from invalid context at mm/slub.c:1250" after CPU hotplug
[2.] Full description of the problem/report:
This was tested on Exynos 3250 board with
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/24/441 applied. Board is booting to
/bin/sh. After executing:
mount -t sysfs sys /sys && echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
&& echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
I'm getting:
[ 7.226405] IRQ258 no longer affine to CPU1
[ 7.226629] CPU1: shutdown
[ 7.230037] CPU1: Software reset
[ 7.231822] CPU1: Booted secondary processor
[ 7.231843] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
mm/slub.c:1250
[ 7.231850] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 0, name: swapper/1
[ 7.231861] Preemption disabled at:[< (null)>] (null)
[ 7.231864]
[ 7.231876] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 3.17.0-dirty #45
[ 7.231914] [<c0013c04>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0010eac>]
(show_stack+0x10/0x14)
[ 7.231931] [<c0010eac>] (show_stack) from [<c03ffd0c>]
(dump_stack+0x70/0xbc)
[ 7.231950] [<c03ffd0c>] (dump_stack) from [<c00b9a20>]
(kmem_cache_alloc+0xe8/0x184)
[ 7.231968] [<c00b9a20>] (kmem_cache_alloc) from [<c0059710>]
(request_threaded_irq+0x64/0x128)
[ 7.231985] [<c0059710>] (request_threaded_irq) from [<c030ecc8>]
(exynos4_local_timer_setup+0xc0/0x13c)
[ 7.232000] [<c030ecc8>] (exynos4_local_timer_setup) from
[<c030ede4>] (exynos4_mct_cpu_notify+0x30/0xa8)
[ 7.232016] [<c030ede4>] (exynos4_mct_cpu_notify) from [<c0038540>]
(notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x84)
[ 7.232034] [<c0038540>] (notifier_call_chain) from [<c0021144>]
(__cpu_notify+0x28/0x44)
[ 7.232049] [<c0021144>] (__cpu_notify) from [<c0012af0>]
(secondary_start_kernel+0xe8/0x138)
[ 7.232062] [<c0012af0>] (secondary_start_kernel) from [<400086a4>]
(0x400086a4)
The problem is that request_irq is calling allocation with GFP_KERNEL
flag in atomic block.
This bug should be easy observable on any board with
"samsung,exynos4210-mct" compatible MCT block.
[4.1.] Kernel version (from /proc/version):
3.17.0
[4.2.] Kernel .config file:
exynos_defconfig + DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP and DEBUG_PREEMPT
[7.] A small shell script or example program which triggers the
problem (if possible)
mount -t sysfs sys /sys && echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
&& echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
[8.] Environment
/bin/sh
When SoC have MCT_INT_SPI interrupt it is being allocated after
hotplugging of the CPU, secondary_start_kernel() is sending CPU boot
notifications which are send when preemption and interrupts are
disabled. Exynos_mct notification handler tries to set up and allocate
IRQ for SPI type interrupt for started CPU and then BUG appears.
There might be similar problem on qcom-timer I think just after looking
on the code.
Best regards,
--
Marcin Jabrzyk
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:51:16PM +0200, Marcin Jabrzyk wrote:
> [1.] One line summary of the problem: "BUG: sleeping function called from
> invalid context at mm/slub.c:1250" after CPU hotplug
I'm really not surprised.
> When SoC have MCT_INT_SPI interrupt it is being allocated after hotplugging
> of the CPU, secondary_start_kernel() is sending CPU boot notifications which
> are send when preemption and interrupts are disabled. Exynos_mct
> notification handler tries to set up and allocate IRQ for SPI type interrupt
> for started CPU and then BUG appears.
> There might be similar problem on qcom-timer I think just after looking on
> the code.
The CPU notifier is called via notify_cpu_starting(), which is called
with interrupts disabled, and a reason code of CPU_STARTING. Interrupts
at this point /must/ remain disabled.
The Exynos code then goes on to call exynos4_local_timer_setup() which
tries to reverse the free_irq() in exynos4_local_timer_stop() by calling
request_irq(). Calling request_irq() with interrupts off has never been
permissible.
So, this code is wrong today, and it was also wrong when it was written.
It /couldn't/ have been tested. It looks like this commit added this
buggy code:
commit ee98d27df6827b5ba4bd99cb7d5cb1239b6a1a31
Author: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Date: Fri Feb 15 16:40:51 2013 -0800
ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
Separate the mct local timers from the local timer API. This will
allow us to remove ARM local timer support in the near future and
gets us closer to moving this driver to drivers/clocksource.
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Abraham <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
A good question would be: why doesn't this happen at boot time when CPU1
is first brought up? The conditions here are no different from hotplugging
CPU1 back in. Do you see a similar warning on boot too?
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
On 10/23/2014 07:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:51:16PM +0200, Marcin Jabrzyk wrote:
>> [1.] One line summary of the problem: "BUG: sleeping function called from
>> invalid context at mm/slub.c:1250" after CPU hotplug
> I'm really not surprised.
>
>> When SoC have MCT_INT_SPI interrupt it is being allocated after hotplugging
>> of the CPU, secondary_start_kernel() is sending CPU boot notifications which
>> are send when preemption and interrupts are disabled. Exynos_mct
>> notification handler tries to set up and allocate IRQ for SPI type interrupt
>> for started CPU and then BUG appears.
>> There might be similar problem on qcom-timer I think just after looking on
>> the code.
There's no problem for qcom-timer because there are only PPIs on SMP
platforms.
> The CPU notifier is called via notify_cpu_starting(), which is called
> with interrupts disabled, and a reason code of CPU_STARTING. Interrupts
> at this point /must/ remain disabled.
>
> The Exynos code then goes on to call exynos4_local_timer_setup() which
> tries to reverse the free_irq() in exynos4_local_timer_stop() by calling
> request_irq(). Calling request_irq() with interrupts off has never been
> permissible.
>
> So, this code is wrong today, and it was also wrong when it was written.
> It /couldn't/ have been tested. It looks like this commit added this
> buggy code:
>
> commit ee98d27df6827b5ba4bd99cb7d5cb1239b6a1a31
> Author: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
> Date: Fri Feb 15 16:40:51 2013 -0800
>
> ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
>
> Separate the mct local timers from the local timer API. This will
> allow us to remove ARM local timer support in the near future and
> gets us closer to moving this driver to drivers/clocksource.
>
> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
> Cc: Thomas Abraham <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
I'm not so sure. It looks like in that patch I didn't change anything
with respect to when things are called. In fact, it looks like we were
calling setup_irq() there, but another patch around the same time
changed that to request_irq()
commit 7114cd749a12ff9fd64a2f6f04919760f45ab183
Author: Chander Kashyap <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Jun 19 00:29:35 2013 +0900
clocksource: exynos_mct: use (request/free)_irq calls for local timer registration
Replace the (setup/remove)_irq calls for local timer registration with
(request/free)_irq calls. This generalizes the local timer registration API.
Suggested by Mark Rutland.
Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
I don't believe setup_irq() allocates anything so we should probably go
back to using that over request_irq() or explore requesting the irqs
once and then enabling/disabling instead.
> A good question would be: why doesn't this happen at boot time when CPU1
> is first brought up? The conditions here are no different from hotplugging
> CPU1 back in. Do you see a similar warning on boot too?
>
Probably because such checks are completely avoided until the system
state is switched to SYSTEM_RUNNING (see the first if statement in
__might_sleep()). It would be nice if we could remove that.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
On 23/10/14 20:41, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 07:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 03:51:16PM +0200, Marcin Jabrzyk wrote:
>>> [1.] One line summary of the problem: "BUG: sleeping function called from
>>> invalid context at mm/slub.c:1250" after CPU hotplug
>> I'm really not surprised.
>>
>>> When SoC have MCT_INT_SPI interrupt it is being allocated after hotplugging
>>> of the CPU, secondary_start_kernel() is sending CPU boot notifications which
>>> are send when preemption and interrupts are disabled. Exynos_mct
>>> notification handler tries to set up and allocate IRQ for SPI type interrupt
>>> for started CPU and then BUG appears.
>>> There might be similar problem on qcom-timer I think just after looking on
>>> the code.
>
> There's no problem for qcom-timer because there are only PPIs on SMP
> platforms.
>
Ok, so it's only a problem on Exynos platform for now.
>> The CPU notifier is called via notify_cpu_starting(), which is called
>> with interrupts disabled, and a reason code of CPU_STARTING. Interrupts
>> at this point /must/ remain disabled.
>>
>> The Exynos code then goes on to call exynos4_local_timer_setup() which
>> tries to reverse the free_irq() in exynos4_local_timer_stop() by calling
>> request_irq(). Calling request_irq() with interrupts off has never been
>> permissible.
>>
>> So, this code is wrong today, and it was also wrong when it was written.
>> It /couldn't/ have been tested. It looks like this commit added this
>> buggy code:
>>
>> commit ee98d27df6827b5ba4bd99cb7d5cb1239b6a1a31
>> Author: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>> Date: Fri Feb 15 16:40:51 2013 -0800
>>
>> ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
>>
>> Separate the mct local timers from the local timer API. This will
>> allow us to remove ARM local timer support in the near future and
>> gets us closer to moving this driver to drivers/clocksource.
>>
>> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Thomas Abraham <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>
> I'm not so sure. It looks like in that patch I didn't change anything
> with respect to when things are called. In fact, it looks like we were
> calling setup_irq() there, but another patch around the same time
> changed that to request_irq()
>
> commit 7114cd749a12ff9fd64a2f6f04919760f45ab183
> Author: Chander Kashyap <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed Jun 19 00:29:35 2013 +0900
>
> clocksource: exynos_mct: use (request/free)_irq calls for local timer registration
>
> Replace the (setup/remove)_irq calls for local timer registration with
> (request/free)_irq calls. This generalizes the local timer registration API.
> Suggested by Mark Rutland.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
>
> I don't believe setup_irq() allocates anything so we should probably go
> back to using that over request_irq() or explore requesting the irqs
> once and then enabling/disabling instead.
>
So what would be a better way to handle this? Going back to setup_irq or
trying to enable/disable irqs on CPU hotplug? As this touched low level
things and it's rare case for setting/enabling irqs just after CPU is
coming back to life again.
>> A good question would be: why doesn't this happen at boot time when CPU1
>> is first brought up? The conditions here are no different from hotplugging
>> CPU1 back in. Do you see a similar warning on boot too?
>>
No the boot looks clean and there is not any sign of that problem.
>
> Probably because such checks are completely avoided until the system
> state is switched to SYSTEM_RUNNING (see the first if statement in
> __might_sleep()). It would be nice if we could remove that.
>
That's most probably the reason of no warnings on boot process.
Best regards,
--
Marcin Jabrzyk
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
On 10/24/2014 06:22 AM, Marcin Jabrzyk wrote:
>
>
> On 23/10/14 20:41, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 10/23/2014 07:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> The CPU notifier is called via notify_cpu_starting(), which is called
>>> with interrupts disabled, and a reason code of CPU_STARTING.
>>> Interrupts
>>> at this point /must/ remain disabled.
>>>
>>> The Exynos code then goes on to call exynos4_local_timer_setup() which
>>> tries to reverse the free_irq() in exynos4_local_timer_stop() by
>>> calling
>>> request_irq(). Calling request_irq() with interrupts off has never
>>> been
>>> permissible.
>>>
>>> So, this code is wrong today, and it was also wrong when it was
>>> written.
>>> It /couldn't/ have been tested. It looks like this commit added this
>>> buggy code:
>>>
>>> commit ee98d27df6827b5ba4bd99cb7d5cb1239b6a1a31
>>> Author: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Fri Feb 15 16:40:51 2013 -0800
>>>
>>> ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
>>>
>>> Separate the mct local timers from the local timer API. This will
>>> allow us to remove ARM local timer support in the near future and
>>> gets us closer to moving this driver to drivers/clocksource.
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
>>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Thomas Abraham <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>>
>> I'm not so sure. It looks like in that patch I didn't change anything
>> with respect to when things are called. In fact, it looks like we were
>> calling setup_irq() there, but another patch around the same time
>> changed that to request_irq()
>>
>> commit 7114cd749a12ff9fd64a2f6f04919760f45ab183
>> Author: Chander Kashyap <[email protected]>
>> Date: Wed Jun 19 00:29:35 2013 +0900
>>
>> clocksource: exynos_mct: use (request/free)_irq calls for local
>> timer registration
>>
>> Replace the (setup/remove)_irq calls for local timer
>> registration with
>> (request/free)_irq calls. This generalizes the local timer
>> registration API.
>> Suggested by Mark Rutland.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
>>
>> I don't believe setup_irq() allocates anything so we should probably go
>> back to using that over request_irq() or explore requesting the irqs
>> once and then enabling/disabling instead.
>>
>
> So what would be a better way to handle this? Going back to setup_irq
> or trying to enable/disable irqs on CPU hotplug? As this touched low
> level things and it's rare case for setting/enabling irqs just after
> CPU is coming back to life again.
>
The safest thing is setup_irq(), but do you care to try this patch?
Doing the enable/disable is not as robust because request_irq() returns
with the irq enabled and then we have to disable the irq to make things
symmetric. This whole driver doesn't look like it's prepared for such a
situation where the interrupt triggers before the clockevent is
registered so this doesn't look like a problem in practice. Doing the
disable right after request is typically bad though, and may not pass
review.
----8<-----
From: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH] clocksource: exynos_mct: Avoid scheduling while atomic
If we call request_irq() during the CPU_STARTING notifier we'll
try to allocate an irq descriptor with GFP_KERNEL while we're
running with irqs disabled. Just request the irqs at boot time
and enable/disable them when a CPU comes up or goes down to avoid
such problems.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
---
drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c b/drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c
index 9403061a2acc..1800053b4644 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c
@@ -467,13 +467,7 @@ static int exynos4_local_timer_setup(struct clock_event_device *evt)
if (mct_int_type == MCT_INT_SPI) {
evt->irq = mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ + cpu];
- if (request_irq(evt->irq, exynos4_mct_tick_isr,
- IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_NOBALANCING,
- evt->name, mevt)) {
- pr_err("exynos-mct: cannot register IRQ %d\n",
- evt->irq);
- return -EIO;
- }
+ enable_irq(evt->irq);
irq_force_affinity(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ + cpu], cpumask_of(cpu));
} else {
enable_percpu_irq(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ], 0);
@@ -488,7 +482,7 @@ static void exynos4_local_timer_stop(struct clock_event_device *evt)
{
evt->set_mode(CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED, evt);
if (mct_int_type == MCT_INT_SPI)
- free_irq(evt->irq, this_cpu_ptr(&percpu_mct_tick));
+ disable_irq(evt->irq);
else
disable_percpu_irq(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ]);
}
@@ -522,8 +516,9 @@ static struct notifier_block exynos4_mct_cpu_nb = {
static void __init exynos4_timer_resources(struct device_node *np, void __iomem *base)
{
- int err;
+ int err, cpu;
struct mct_clock_event_device *mevt = this_cpu_ptr(&percpu_mct_tick);
+ struct mct_clock_event_device *evt;
struct clk *mct_clk, *tick_clk;
tick_clk = np ? of_clk_get_by_name(np, "fin_pll") :
@@ -549,7 +544,15 @@ static void __init exynos4_timer_resources(struct device_node *np, void __iomem
WARN(err, "MCT: can't request IRQ %d (%d)\n",
mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ], err);
} else {
- irq_set_affinity(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ], cpumask_of(0));
+ for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
+ evt = per_cpu_ptr(&percpu_mct_tick, cpu);
+ if (request_irq(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ + cpu],
+ exynos4_mct_tick_isr,
+ IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_NOBALANCING,
+ "MCT", evt))
+ pr_err("exynos-mct: cannot register IRQ\n");
+ disable_irq(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ + cpu]);
+ }
}
err = register_cpu_notifier(&exynos4_mct_cpu_nb);
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
So I've tried this patch, it resolves one problem but introduces also
new ones. As expected the BUG warning is not showing after applying this
patch but there are some interesting side effects.
I was looking on /proc/interrupts output. IRQ for CPU0 have "MCT" name
and IRQ for CPU1 has unexpectedly no name at all.
After making hotplug cycle of CPU1 I've observed that IRQs attached
originally for that CPU are generating on really low count and not in
order with IRQ for CPU0.
What's more the interrupt for CPU1 is showing to me as being counted for
both CPUs, so it's probably not being attached to CPU1.
Best regards,
Marcin Jabrzyk
On 27/10/14 21:16, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/24/2014 06:22 AM, Marcin Jabrzyk wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/14 20:41, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2014 07:06 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> The CPU notifier is called via notify_cpu_starting(), which is called
>>>> with interrupts disabled, and a reason code of CPU_STARTING.
>>>> Interrupts
>>>> at this point /must/ remain disabled.
>>>>
>>>> The Exynos code then goes on to call exynos4_local_timer_setup() which
>>>> tries to reverse the free_irq() in exynos4_local_timer_stop() by
>>>> calling
>>>> request_irq(). Calling request_irq() with interrupts off has never
>>>> been
>>>> permissible.
>>>>
>>>> So, this code is wrong today, and it was also wrong when it was
>>>> written.
>>>> It /couldn't/ have been tested. It looks like this commit added this
>>>> buggy code:
>>>>
>>>> commit ee98d27df6827b5ba4bd99cb7d5cb1239b6a1a31
>>>> Author: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>>>> Date: Fri Feb 15 16:40:51 2013 -0800
>>>>
>>>> ARM: EXYNOS4: Divorce mct from local timer API
>>>>
>>>> Separate the mct local timers from the local timer API. This will
>>>> allow us to remove ARM local timer support in the near future and
>>>> gets us closer to moving this driver to drivers/clocksource.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
>>>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
>>>> Cc: Thomas Abraham <[email protected]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure. It looks like in that patch I didn't change anything
>>> with respect to when things are called. In fact, it looks like we were
>>> calling setup_irq() there, but another patch around the same time
>>> changed that to request_irq()
>>>
>>> commit 7114cd749a12ff9fd64a2f6f04919760f45ab183
>>> Author: Chander Kashyap <[email protected]>
>>> Date: Wed Jun 19 00:29:35 2013 +0900
>>>
>>> clocksource: exynos_mct: use (request/free)_irq calls for local
>>> timer registration
>>>
>>> Replace the (setup/remove)_irq calls for local timer
>>> registration with
>>> (request/free)_irq calls. This generalizes the local timer
>>> registration API.
>>> Suggested by Mark Rutland.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chander Kashyap <[email protected]>
>>> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> I don't believe setup_irq() allocates anything so we should probably go
>>> back to using that over request_irq() or explore requesting the irqs
>>> once and then enabling/disabling instead.
>>>
>>
>> So what would be a better way to handle this? Going back to setup_irq
>> or trying to enable/disable irqs on CPU hotplug? As this touched low
>> level things and it's rare case for setting/enabling irqs just after
>> CPU is coming back to life again.
>>
>
> The safest thing is setup_irq(), but do you care to try this patch?
> Doing the enable/disable is not as robust because request_irq() returns
> with the irq enabled and then we have to disable the irq to make things
> symmetric. This whole driver doesn't look like it's prepared for such a
> situation where the interrupt triggers before the clockevent is
> registered so this doesn't look like a problem in practice. Doing the
> disable right after request is typically bad though, and may not pass
> review.
>
> ----8<-----
>
> From: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
> Subject: [PATCH] clocksource: exynos_mct: Avoid scheduling while atomic
>
> If we call request_irq() during the CPU_STARTING notifier we'll
> try to allocate an irq descriptor with GFP_KERNEL while we're
> running with irqs disabled. Just request the irqs at boot time
> and enable/disable them when a CPU comes up or goes down to avoid
> such problems.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c | 23 +++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c b/drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c
> index 9403061a2acc..1800053b4644 100644
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/exynos_mct.c
> @@ -467,13 +467,7 @@ static int exynos4_local_timer_setup(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>
> if (mct_int_type == MCT_INT_SPI) {
> evt->irq = mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ + cpu];
> - if (request_irq(evt->irq, exynos4_mct_tick_isr,
> - IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_NOBALANCING,
> - evt->name, mevt)) {
> - pr_err("exynos-mct: cannot register IRQ %d\n",
> - evt->irq);
> - return -EIO;
> - }
> + enable_irq(evt->irq);
> irq_force_affinity(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ + cpu], cpumask_of(cpu));
> } else {
> enable_percpu_irq(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ], 0);
> @@ -488,7 +482,7 @@ static void exynos4_local_timer_stop(struct clock_event_device *evt)
> {
> evt->set_mode(CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED, evt);
> if (mct_int_type == MCT_INT_SPI)
> - free_irq(evt->irq, this_cpu_ptr(&percpu_mct_tick));
> + disable_irq(evt->irq);
> else
> disable_percpu_irq(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ]);
> }
> @@ -522,8 +516,9 @@ static struct notifier_block exynos4_mct_cpu_nb = {
>
> static void __init exynos4_timer_resources(struct device_node *np, void __iomem *base)
> {
> - int err;
> + int err, cpu;
> struct mct_clock_event_device *mevt = this_cpu_ptr(&percpu_mct_tick);
> + struct mct_clock_event_device *evt;
> struct clk *mct_clk, *tick_clk;
>
> tick_clk = np ? of_clk_get_by_name(np, "fin_pll") :
> @@ -549,7 +544,15 @@ static void __init exynos4_timer_resources(struct device_node *np, void __iomem
> WARN(err, "MCT: can't request IRQ %d (%d)\n",
> mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ], err);
> } else {
> - irq_set_affinity(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ], cpumask_of(0));
> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> + evt = per_cpu_ptr(&percpu_mct_tick, cpu);
> + if (request_irq(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ + cpu],
> + exynos4_mct_tick_isr,
> + IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_NOBALANCING,
> + "MCT", evt))
> + pr_err("exynos-mct: cannot register IRQ\n");
> + disable_irq(mct_irqs[MCT_L0_IRQ + cpu]);
> + }
> }
>
> err = register_cpu_notifier(&exynos4_mct_cpu_nb);
>
--
Marcin Jabrzyk
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics