Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tip: sched/core] sched/core: Initialize the idle task with
 preemption disabled
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, x86@kernel.org
References: <20210512094636.2958515-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <162081815405.29796.14574924529325899839.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
 <20210706194456.GA1823793@roeck-us.net> <87fswr6lqv.mognet@arm.com>
 <20210707120305.GB115752@lothringen> <87czru727k.mognet@arm.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Message-ID: <c30097f3-63b4-6fa0-a369-8f4e20ee1040@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jul 2021 07:14:45 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87czru727k.mognet@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/7/21 5:11 AM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 07/07/21 14:03, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 12:55:20AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>> Thanks for the report.
>>>
>>> So somehow the init task ends up with a non-zero preempt_count()? Per
>>> FORK_PREEMPT_COUNT we should exit __ret_from_fork() with a zero count, are
>>> you hitting the WARN_ONCE() in finish_task_switch()?
>>>
>>> Does CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y yield anything interesting?
>>>
>>> I can't make sense of this right now, but it's a bit late :) I'll grab some
>>> toolchain+qemu tomorrow and go poke at it (and while at it I need to do the
>>> same with powerpc).
>>
>> One possible issue is that s390's init_idle_preempt_count() doesn't apply on the
>> target idle task but on the _current_ CPU. And since smp_init() ->
>> idle_threads_init() is actually called remotely, we are overwriting the current
>> CPU preempt_count() instead of the target one.
> 
> Indeed, this becomes quite obvious when tracing the preemption count
> changes. This also means that s390 relied on the idle_thread_get() from the
> hotplug machinery to properly setup the preempt count, rather than
> init_idle_preempt_count() - which is quite yuck.
> 
> I'll write a patch for that and likely one for powerpc.
> 

Can you reproduce the problem with a powerpc qemu emulation ?
If so, how do you reproduce it there ? Reason for asking is that I don't see
the problem with any of my powerpc emulations, and I would like to add test
case(s) if possible.

Thanks,
Guenter