Re: Crashes in arm qemu emulations due to 'cpufreq: governor: Replace timers with utilization ...'
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: 2016-02-15 20:41:13
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-next, lkml
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:03:33PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:quoted
On 15/02/16 18:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:quoted
That would explain it, thanks. So it looks like we should always use irq_work_queue() on UP even if CONFIG_SMP is set, shouldn't we?Something like that, yes. CONFIG_SMP is not an indication of an SMP system anymore (we've even dropped the config option on arm64). Hopefully num_possible_cpus() is reliable enough to let you do the right thing...CONFIG_SMP just says whether to include support for SMP. It doesn't mandate running on a SMP system. :) I've been looking around the usages of irq_work_queue_on in kernel/ in -rc4, and some places seem to check for "this CPU": /* * It is possible that a restart caused this CPU to be * chosen again. Don't bother with an IPI, just see if we * have more to push. */ if (unlikely(cpu == rq->cpu)) goto again; /* Try the next RT overloaded CPU */ irq_work_queue_on(&rt_rq->push_work, cpu); I'm not sure about tell_cpu_to_push(). It's also called via tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(), and the core scheduler avoids calling this for the current CPU: if (tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu)) { if (cpu != smp_processor_id() || tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(cpu); I'm not sure about add_nr_running() in kernel/sched/sched.h - I think that _could_ be a problem even without Rafael's cpufreq change. So... the question is what do we do with irq_work_queue_on() in general when called on non-SMP systems.
I guess it might fall back to arch_irq_work_raise() when asked to queue on the same CPU, so long as that will always do the right thing (ie. actually queue on the same one). Thanks, Rafael