Hi Ingo, On 06/02/2015 07:59 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Gu Zheng <guz.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > >> The following lockdep warning occurrs when running with latest kernel: >> [ 3.178000] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> [ 3.183000] WARNING: CPU: 128 PID: 0 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2755 >> lockdep_trace_alloc+0xdd/0xe0() >> [ 3.193000] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(irqs_disabled_flags(flags)) >> [ 3.199000] Modules linked in: >> >> [ 3.203000] CPU: 128 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/128 Not tainted 4.1.0-rc3 #70 >> [ 3.221000] 0000000000000000 2d6601fb3e6d4e4c ffff88086fd5fc38 >> ffffffff81773f0a >> [ 3.230000] 0000000000000000 ffff88086fd5fc90 ffff88086fd5fc78 >> ffffffff8108c85a >> [ 3.238000] ffff88086fd60000 0000000000000092 ffff88086fd60000 >> 00000000000000d0 >> [ 3.246000] Call Trace: >> [ 3.249000] [<ffffffff81773f0a>] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65 >> [ 3.255000] [<ffffffff8108c85a>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8a/0xc0 >> [ 3.261000] [<ffffffff8108c8e5>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x55/0x70 >> [ 3.268000] [<ffffffff810ee24d>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0xdd/0xe0 >> [ 3.274000] [<ffffffff811cda0d>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xad/0xca0 >> [ 3.281000] [<ffffffff810ec7ad>] ? __lock_acquire+0xf6d/0x1560 >> [ 3.288000] [<ffffffff81219c8a>] alloc_page_interleave+0x3a/0x90 >> [ 3.295000] [<ffffffff8121b32d>] alloc_pages_current+0x17d/0x1a0 >> [ 3.301000] [<ffffffff811c869e>] ? __get_free_pages+0xe/0x50 >> [ 3.308000] [<ffffffff811c869e>] __get_free_pages+0xe/0x50 >> [ 3.314000] [<ffffffff8102640b>] init_espfix_ap+0x17b/0x320 >> [ 3.320000] [<ffffffff8105c691>] start_secondary+0xf1/0x1f0 >> [ 3.327000] ---[ end trace 1b3327d9d6a1d62c ]--- >> >> This seems a mis-warning by lockdep, as we alloc pages with GFP_KERNEL in >> init_espfix_ap() which is called before enabled local irq, and the lockdep >> sub-system considers this behaviour as allocating memory with GFP_FS with >> local >> irq disabled, then trigger the warning as mentioned about. > > Why should this be a 'mis-warning'? If the GFP_KERNEL allocation sleeps then > we'll > sleep with irqs disabled => bad. > > This looks like a real (albeit hard to trigger) bug. You are right. Thanks for correct me, I misread the log. > >> Though we could allocate them on the boot CPU side and hand them over to the >> secondary CPU, but it seemes a bit waste if some of cpus are offline. As >> thers >> is no need to these pages(espfix stack) until we try to run user code, so we >> postpone the initialization of espfix stack after cpu booted to avoid the >> noise. > >> -void init_espfix_ap(void) >> +void init_espfix_ap(int cpu) >> { > > So how about the concern I raised in a former thread, that the allocation > should > be done for the node the target CPU is on? The 'cpu' parameter should be > propagated to the allocation as well, and turned into a node allocation or so. > > Even though some CPUs will share the espfix stack, some won't. Hmm, sounds reasonable. Regards, Gu > > Thanks, > > Ingo > . > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/