On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:34:04AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:58:55 +0100,
> Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.miz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > +void ipi_nmi_setup(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!ipi_desc)
> > > + return;
> >
> > ipi_nmi_setup() may be called twice for CPU0:
> >
> > set_smp_ipi_range => set_smp_ipi_nmi => ipi_nmi_setup
> > => ipi_setup => ipi_nmi_setup
> >
> > Actually, I got the following error message via the second ipi_nmi_setup():
> >
> > GICv3: Pseudo-NMIs enabled using relaxed ICC_PMR_EL1 synchronisation
> > GICv3: Cannot set NMI property of enabled IRQ 8
> > genirq: Failed to setup NMI delivery: irq 8
> >
> > Why don't we have a check to prevent that? Like as:
> >
> > if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, ipi_desc->percpu_enabled))
> > return;
>
> That's definitely the wrong thing to do. prepare_nmi_setup() shouldn't
> be called twice, and papering over it isn't acceptable.
Got it. How about moving ipi_nmi_setup() from ipi_setup() to
secondary_start_kernel() ? so that CPU0 can call ipi_nmi_setup() only
from set_smp_ipi_nmi().
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
@@ -245,6 +245,7 @@ asmlinkage notrace void secondary_start_kernel(void)
notify_cpu_starting(cpu);
ipi_setup(cpu);
+ ipi_nmi_setup(cpu);
store_cpu_topology(cpu);
numa_add_cpu(cpu);
@@ -966,8 +967,6 @@ static void ipi_setup(int cpu)
for (i = 0; i < nr_ipi; i++)
enable_percpu_irq(ipi_irq_base + i, 0);
-
- ipi_nmi_setup(cpu);
}
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
Thanks,
Masa
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
