Re: hpsa - BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000 00000000] code: kworker/u:0/6

[scameron]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:28:02AM -0400, John Kacur wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > [Adding missing cc to linux-scsi]
> > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 23:33 +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > We're seeing this on a 3.6 kernel with the real-time patch applied, but it
> > > looks like it is relevant with the real-time patch in the latest kernel
> 
> This should read, "it looks like it is relevant WITHOUT the real-time patch in the latest kernel".
> 
> 
> > > too.
> > > 
> > > [   49.688847] hpsa 0000:03:00.0: hpsa0: <0x323a> at IRQ 67 using DAC
> > > [   49.749928] scsi0 : hpsa
> > > [   49.784437] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000
> > > 00000000] code: kworker/u:0/6
> > > [   49.784465] caller is enqueue_cmd_and_start_io+0x5a/0x100 [hpsa]
> > > [   49.784468] Pid: 6, comm: kworker/u:0 Not tainted
> > > 3.6.11.5-rt37.52.el6rt.x86_64.debug #1
> > > [   49.784471] Call Trace:
> > > [   49.784512]  [<ffffffff812abe83>] debug_smp_processor_id+0x123/0x150
> > > [   49.784520]  [<ffffffffa009043a>] enqueue_cmd_and_start_io+0x5a/0x100
> > > [hpsa]
> > > [   49.784529]  [<ffffffffa00905cb>]
> > > hpsa_scsi_do_simple_cmd_core+0xeb/0x110 [hpsa]
> > > [   49.784537]  [<ffffffff812b09c8>] ? swiotlb_dma_mapping_error+0x18/0x30
> > > [   49.784544]  [<ffffffff812b09c8>] ? swiotlb_dma_mapping_error+0x18/0x30
> > > [   49.784553]  [<ffffffffa0090701>]
> > > hpsa_scsi_do_simple_cmd_with_retry+0x91/0x280 [hpsa]
> > > [   49.784562]  [<ffffffffa0093558>]
> > > hpsa_scsi_do_report_luns.clone.2+0xd8/0x130 [hpsa]
> > > [   49.784571]  [<ffffffffa00935ea>]
> > > hpsa_gather_lun_info.clone.3+0x3a/0x1a0 [hpsa]
> > > [   49.784580]  [<ffffffffa00963df>] hpsa_update_scsi_devices+0x11f/0x4f0
> > > [hpsa]
> > > [   49.784592]  [<ffffffff81592019>] ? sub_preempt_count+0xa9/0xe0
> > > [   49.784601]  [<ffffffffa00968ad>] hpsa_scan_start+0xfd/0x150 [hpsa]
> > > [   49.784613]  [<ffffffff8158cba8>] ? rt_spin_lock_slowunlock+0x78/0x90
> > > [   49.784626]  [<ffffffff813b04d7>] do_scsi_scan_host+0x37/0xa0
> > > [   49.784632]  [<ffffffff813b05da>] do_scan_async+0x1a/0x30
> > > [   49.784643]  [<ffffffff8107c4ab>] async_run_entry_fn+0x9b/0x1d0
> > > [   49.784655]  [<ffffffff8106ae92>] process_one_work+0x1f2/0x620
> > > [   49.784661]  [<ffffffff8106ae20>] ? process_one_work+0x180/0x620
> > > [   49.784668]  [<ffffffff8106d4fe>] ? worker_thread+0x5e/0x3a0
> > > [   49.784674]  [<ffffffff8107c410>] ? async_schedule+0x20/0x20
> > > [   49.784681]  [<ffffffff8106d5d3>] worker_thread+0x133/0x3a0
> > > [   49.784688]  [<ffffffff8106d4a0>] ? manage_workers+0x190/0x190
> > > [   49.784696]  [<ffffffff81073236>] kthread+0xa6/0xb0
> > > [   49.784707]  [<ffffffff815970a4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > > [   49.784715]  [<ffffffff81082a7c>] ? finish_task_switch+0x8c/0x110
> > > [   49.784721]  [<ffffffff8158e44b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x3b/0x70
> > > [   49.784727]  [<ffffffff8158e85d>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe
> > > [   49.784734]  [<ffffffff81073190>] ? kthreadd+0x1e0/0x1e0
> > > [   49.784739]  [<ffffffff815970a0>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
> > > 
> > > -------
> > > 
> > > When I look at the code I see this call chain
> > > enqueue_cmd_and_start_io()->
> > > 	set_performant_mode()->
> > > 		smp_processor_id()
> > > Which if you have debugging enabled calls debug_processor_id() and
> > > triggers the warning.
> > > 
> > > I'm not very familiar with the hpsa code, so I'm not entirely sure what
> > > the purpose of this line is
> > > 
> > > c->Header.ReplyQueue = smp_processor_id() % h->nreply_queues;
> > > 
> > > Is the purpose to simply try to get a range of ReplyQueue numbers, but
> > > somewhat arbitrary?  Or is it necessary that the current processor_id
> > > is used? If it is the former, and you're not accessing per cpu structures,
> > > or pinning a cpu, or anything like that then I would think it is safe to
> > > change this to a raw_smp_processor_id() to get rid of a false positive
> > > warning.

It's not critical that they match (will work if they don't) but for certain
workloads you can get more performance if you pin processes to cpus and
arrange msix interrupt vectors so that commands are likely to complete on
the same cpu they originated from.

In any case, I think your analysis is correct.  Thanks.

> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c b/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
> > > index 7f4f790..4e19267 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
> > > @@ -583,7 +583,7 @@ static void set_performant_mode(struct ctlr_info *h,
> > > struct CommandList *c)
> > >  		c->busaddr |= 1 | (h->blockFetchTable[c->Header.SGList] << 1);
> > >  		if (likely(h->msix_vector))
> > >  			c->Header.ReplyQueue =
> > > -				smp_processor_id() % h->nreply_queues;
> > > +				raw_smp_processor_id() % h->nreply_queues;
> > >  	}
> > >  }

Ack.

-- steve

> > >  
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > 
> > > John Kacur
> > 
> > 
> > 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/