lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH] x86/mce/therm_throt: Fix the access of uninitialized therm_work
Date


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 3:08 PM
> To: Liu, Chuansheng <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com>;
> tglx@linutronix.de; mingo@redhat.com; hpa@zytor.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce/therm_throt: Fix the access of uninitialized
> therm_work
>
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 06:41:55AM +0000, Chuansheng Liu wrote:
> > In ICL platform, it is easy to hit bootup failure with panic
> > in thermal interrupt handler during early bootup stage.
> >
> > Such issue makes my platform almost can not boot up with
> > latest kernel code.
> >
> > The call stack is like:
> > kernel BUG at kernel/timer/timer.c:1152!
> >
> > Call Trace:
> > __queue_delayed_work
> > queue_delayed_work_on
> > therm_throt_process
> > intel_thermal_interrupt
> > ...
> >
> > When one CPU is up, the irq is enabled prior to CPU UP
> > notification which will then initialize therm_worker.
>
> You mean the unmasking of the thermal vector at the end of
> intel_init_thermal()?
Exactly, and there is one local CPU irq enable later too.

>
> If so, why don't you move that to the end of the notifier and unmask it
> only after all the necessary work like setting up the workqueues etc, is
> done, and save yourself adding yet another silly bool?
>
Thanks for your suggestion, I am just worried about the interrupt delay.
I traced there is about 2s gap between unmask interrupt and workqueue
Initialization. If you think it is OK to ignore this delay, I will make another
simple patch as you suggested😊

Best Regards
Chuansheng


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-06 10:23    [W:0.120 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site