Re: NOHZ: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp.c:123 native_smp_send_reschedule,round 2

From: Michael Wang
Date: Mon May 20 2013 - 02:58:41 EST

On 05/20/2013 02:47 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 02:23:37PM +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 05/20/2013 12:50 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:16:33AM +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>> I suppose the reason is that the cpu we passed to
>>>> mod_delayed_work_on() has a chance to become offline before we
>>>> disabled irq, what about check it before send resched ipi? like:
>>> I think this is only addressing the symptoms - what we should be doing
>>> instead is asking ourselves why are we even scheduling work on a cpu if
>>> the machine goes offline?
>>> I don't know though who should be responsible for killing all that
>>> work - the workqueue itself or the guy who created it, i.e. cpufreq
>>> governor...
>> So there are two questions here:
>> 1. Is gov_queue_work() want to queue the work on offline cpu?
>> 2. Is mod_delayed_work_on() allow offline cpu?
>> I guess both should be false?
> Well, if we don't allow queueing work on a cpu which goes offline, i.e.
> #2, the problem should be solved.

I've take a look at the usage of queue_delayed_work_on() and
mod_delayed_work_on(), mostly passed this_cpu, or those in online mask,
I think offline cpu is not by designed.

Besides, the cpu gov_queue_work() is using 'policy->cpus' which seems to
be updated during UP DOWN notify, I think they are supposed to be online.

But we need expert in cpufreq to confirm all these...

Michael Wang

> Tejun?
> Here are the splats:

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at