Message-ID: <4DFF2E37.8030602@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:55:43 +0530
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ARM: smp: Fix the CPU hotplug race with scheduler.
References: <1308561839-18407-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <20110620095053.GA2082@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110620101438.GD2082@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4DFF20B3.7010209@ti.com> <20110620104415.GF2082@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4DFF255E.5030308@ti.com> <20110620111336.GG2082@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20110620111336.GG2082@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1712
Lines: 45

On 6/20/2011 4:43 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 04:17:58PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> Yes. It's because of interrupt and the CPU active-online
>> race.
>
> I don't see that as a conclusion from this dump.
>
>> Here is the chash log..
>> [   21.025451] CPU1: Booted secondary processor
>> [   21.025451] CPU1: Unknown IPI message 0x1
>> [   21.029113] Switched to NOHz mode on CPU #1
>> [   21.029174] BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, swapper/0, c06220c4
>
> That's the xtime seqlock.  We're trying to update the xtime from CPU1,
> which is not yet online and not yet active.  That's fine, we're just
> spinning on the spinlock here, waiting for the other CPUs to release
> it.
>
> But what this is saying is that the other CPUs aren't releasing it.
> The cpu hotplug code doesn't hold the seqlock either.  So who else is
> holding this lock, causing CPU1 to time out on it.
>
> The other thing is that this is only supposed to trigger after about
> one second:
>
>          u64 loops = loops_per_jiffy * HZ;
>                  for (i = 0; i<  loops; i++) {
>                          if (arch_spin_trylock(&lock->raw_lock))
>                                  return;
>                          __delay(1);
>                  }
>
> which from the timings you have at the beginning of your printk lines
> is clearly not the case - it's more like 61us.
>
> Are you running with those h/w timer delay patches?
Nope.

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