Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] smp: Print more useful debug info upon receiving IPI on an offline CPU

["Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 05/13/2014 09:08 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 02:06:49AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Today the smp-call-function code just prints a warning if we get an IPI on
>> an offline CPU. This info is sufficient to let us know that something went
>> wrong, but often it is very hard to debug exactly who sent the IPI and why,
>> from this info alone.
>>
>> In most cases, we get the warning about the IPI to an offline CPU, immediately
>> after the CPU going offline comes out of the stop-machine phase and reenables
>> interrupts. Since all online CPUs participate in stop-machine, the information
>> regarding the sender of the IPI is already lost by the time we exit the
>> stop-machine loop. So even if we dump the stack on each CPU at this point,
>> we won't find anything useful since all of them will show the stack-trace of
>> the stopper thread. So we need a better way to figure out who sent the IPI and
>> why.
>>
>> To achieve this, when we detect an IPI targeted to an offline CPU, loop through
>> the call-single-data linked list and print out the payload (i.e., the name
>> of the function which was supposed to be executed by the target CPU). This
>> would give us an insight as to who might have sent the IPI and help us debug
>> this further.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  kernel/smp.c |   18 ++++++++++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
>> index 06d574e..f864921 100644
>> --- a/kernel/smp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
>> @@ -185,14 +185,24 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
>>  {
>>  	struct llist_node *entry;
>>  	struct call_single_data *csd, *csd_next;
>> +	static bool warned;
>> +
>> +	entry = llist_del_all(&__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue));
>> +	entry = llist_reverse_order(entry);
>>  
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Shouldn't receive this interrupt on a cpu that is not yet online.
>>  	 */
>> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_online(smp_processor_id()));
>> -
>> -	entry = llist_del_all(&__get_cpu_var(call_single_queue));
>> -	entry = llist_reverse_order(entry);
>> +	if (unlikely(!cpu_online(smp_processor_id()) && !warned)) {
>> +		warned = true;
>> +		WARN_ON(1);
> 
> More details may be better:
> 
> WARN_ONCE(1, "IPI on offline CPU");
>

Sure, that sounds better.
 
>> +		/*
>> +		 * We don't have to use the _safe() variant here
>> +		 * because we are not invoking the IPI handlers yet.
>> +		 */
>> +		llist_for_each_entry(csd, entry, llist)
>> +			pr_warn("SMP IPI Payload: %pS \n", csd->func);
> 
> Payload is kind of vague. How about "IPI func %pS sent on offline CPU".
> 

Ok, and maybe s/func/function and s/on/to ?

>> +	}
>>  
>>  	llist_for_each_entry_safe(csd, csd_next, entry, llist) {
>>  		csd->func(csd->info);
>>
> 

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat