From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753495AbXLAQtx (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:49:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751216AbXLAQtj (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:49:39 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:59467 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750875AbXLAQti (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Dec 2007 11:49:38 -0500 Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:48:33 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Tomas Carnecky Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org Subject: Re: WARNING: smp_call_function_single() and smp_call_function_mask() Message-ID: <20071201084833.63263489@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <4752703B.10305@dbservice.com> References: <4752703B.10305@dbservice.com> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:43:39 +0100 Tomas Carnecky wrote: > WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp_64.c:427 smp_call_function_single() > WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp_64.c:397 smp_call_function_mask() > > dmesg and config attached. > > I'm getting about three of each at boot. I'm running: > commit e1cca7e8d484390169777b423a7fe46c7021fec1 > Date: Thu Nov 29 16:25:29 2007 -0800 > which is the latest git as of yesterday plus a one (unrelated) debug > statement patch in usb uhci. > > There was a similar bug report after 2.6.23-rc8-mm was released. > Though there seems to be a fundamental problem with how people use > smp_call_function*() [1]. And this can just as well be another > incarnation of it. > > Is that easy enough to fix or do I need to bisect (it didn't happen in > 2.6.24-rc3)? > this appears to be a bug in the acpi code, to be exact in processor_throttling.c file, function acpi_processor_set_throttling_ptc(); it disables interrupts and then appears to do a cross-cpu IPI to set the state. Well... we can't do that due to deadlock reasons (you can't do IPI's with interrupts off or you can get a very nice deadlock with the cpu that you IPI trying to do the same thing to you).