sb_edac: Only register mce_decode_chain once
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 sb_edac: Only register mce_decode_chain once
From: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
I was lucky enough to get a 4-socket Sandy Bridge system. Unfortunately it hangs on boot when loading the sb_edac module, with the NMI watchdog giving the following trace:
EDAC MC0: Giving out device to 'sbridge_edac.c' 'Sandy Bridge Socket#0': DEV 0000:3f:0e.0
EDAC MC1: Giving out device to 'sbridge_edac.c' 'Sandy Bridge Socket#1': DEV 0000:7f:0e.0
EDAC MC2: Giving out device to 'sbridge_edac.c' 'Sandy Bridge Socket#2': DEV 0000:bf:0e.0
------------[ cut here ]------------
WARNING: at /home/roland/linux-2.6/kernel/watchdog.c:242 watchdog_overflow_callback+0x9a/0xc0()
Hardware name:
Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 11
Modules linked in: sb_edac(+) edac_core kvm_intel coretemp kvm mei acpi_pad joydev ghash_clmulni_intel hid_generic aesni_intel cryptd aes_x86_64 acpi_power_meter lpc_ich shpchp microcode usbhid hid ses enclosure bnx2x libcrc32c megaraid_sas mdio
Pid: 2408, comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 3.4.0+ #1
Call Trace:
<NMI> [<ffffffff810515ff>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
[<ffffffff810516f6>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x50
[<ffffffff810db3da>] watchdog_overflow_callback+0x9a/0xc0
[<ffffffff81115ffc>] __perf_event_overflow+0x9c/0x220
[<ffffffff81024faa>] ? x86_perf_event_set_period+0xda/0x150
[<ffffffff81116ad4>] perf_event_overflow+0x14/0x20
[<ffffffff8102a190>] intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x180/0x300
[<ffffffff813a0ed0>] ? ghes_read_estatus+0x90/0x180
[<ffffffff816550d1>] perf_event_nmi_handler+0x21/0x30
[<ffffffff81654851>] nmi_handle.isra.0+0x51/0x80
[<ffffffff81654a21>] do_nmi+0x1a1/0x380
[<ffffffff81653e7c>] end_repeat_nmi+0x1a/0x1e
[<ffffffff8107aa05>] ? atomic_notifier_chain_register+0x35/0x60
[<ffffffff8107aa05>] ? atomic_notifier_chain_register+0x35/0x60
[<ffffffff8107aa05>] ? atomic_notifier_chain_register+0x35/0x60
<<EOE>> [<ffffffff8102b5dd>] mce_register_decode_chain+0x2d/0x120
[<ffffffffa00fdbdb>] sbridge_probe+0xa86/0xbab [sb_edac]
[<ffffffff811eaf05>] ? sysfs_link_sibling+0xa5/0xe0
[<ffffffff81339c1c>] local_pci_probe+0x5c/0xd0
[<ffffffff8133b551>] pci_device_probe+0x101/0x120
[<ffffffff813fbf3e>] driver_probe_device+0x7e/0x220
[<ffffffff813fc18b>] __driver_attach+0xab/0xb0
[<ffffffff813fc0e0>] ? driver_probe_device+0x220/0x220
[<ffffffff813fa376>] bus_for_each_dev+0x56/0x90
[<ffffffff813fba5e>] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
[<ffffffff813fb610>] bus_add_driver+0x1a0/0x270
[<ffffffffa000a000>] ? 0xffffffffa0009fff
[<ffffffffa000a000>] ? 0xffffffffa0009fff
[<ffffffff813fc6e6>] driver_register+0x76/0x130
[<ffffffffa000a000>] ? 0xffffffffa0009fff
[<ffffffff8133b225>] __pci_register_driver+0x55/0xd0
[<ffffffffa000a033>] sbridge_init+0x33/0x1000 [sb_edac]
[<ffffffff8100203f>] do_one_initcall+0x3f/0x170
[<ffffffff810b2c0e>] sys_init_module+0xbe/0x230
[<ffffffff8165b7a9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
---[ end trace a7919e7f17c0a727 ]---The problem is that the system has multiple memory controllers but registers the same static notifier_block multiple times. Fix this by moving the registration/unregistration to the module init/exit function.
--- drivers/edac/sb_edac.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
drivers/edac/sb_edac.c +4 -4
@@ -1604,8 +1604,6 @@ static void sbridge_unregister_mci(struct sbridge_dev *sbridge_dev)debugf0 ("MC: " __FILE__": %s(): mci = %p, dev = %p\n" , __func__, mci, &sbridge_dev->pdev[0 ]->dev); -mce_unregister_decode_chain (&sbridge_mce_dec); -/* Remove MC sysfs nodes */ edac_mc_del_mc (mci->dev);
@@ -1682,7 +1680,6 @@ static int sbridge_register_mci(struct sbridge_dev *sbridge_dev) goto fail0; } -mce_register_decode_chain (&sbridge_mce_dec);return 0 ; fail0:
@@ -1811,8 +1808,10 @@ static int __init sbridge_init(void) pci_rc =pci_register_driver (&sbridge_driver); -if (pci_rc >=0 ) +if (pci_rc >=0 ) { +mce_register_decode_chain (&sbridge_mce_dec);return 0 ; + }sbridge_printk (KERN_ERR ,"Failed to register device with error %d.\n" , pci_rc);
@@ -1828,6 +1827,7 @@ static void __exit sbridge_exit(void) {debugf2 ("MC: " __FILE__": %s()\n" , __func__);pci_unregister_driver (&sbridge_driver); +mce_unregister_decode_chain (&sbridge_mce_dec); }module_init (sbridge_init);
Signature · 1 line
1.7.9.5
Quoted 97 lines · Roland Dreier
From: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
I was lucky enough to get a 4-socket Sandy Bridge system. Unfortunately it hangs on boot when loading the
sb_edacmodule, with the NMI watchdog giving the following trace:EDAC MC0: Giving out device to 'sbridge_edac.c' 'Sandy Bridge Socket#0': DEV 0000:3f:0e.0 EDAC MC1: Giving out device to 'sbridge_edac.c' 'Sandy Bridge Socket#1': DEV 0000:7f:0e.0 EDAC MC2: Giving out device to 'sbridge_edac.c' 'Sandy Bridge Socket#2': DEV 0000:bf:0e.0 ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: at /home/roland/linux-2.6/kernel/watchdog.c:242 watchdog_overflow_callback+0x9a/0xc0() Hardware name: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 11 Modules linked in: sb_edac(+) edac_core kvm_intel coretemp kvm mei acpi_pad joydev ghash_clmulni_intel hid_generic aesni_intel cryptd aes_x86_64 acpi_power_meter lpc_ich shpchp microcode usbhid hid ses enclosure bnx2x libcrc32c megaraid_sas mdio Pid: 2408, comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 3.4.0+ #1 Call Trace: <NMI> [<ffffffff810515ff>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0 [<ffffffff810516f6>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x50 [<ffffffff810db3da>] watchdog_overflow_callback+0x9a/0xc0 [<ffffffff81115ffc>] __perf_event_overflow+0x9c/0x220 [<ffffffff81024faa>] ? x86_perf_event_set_period+0xda/0x150 [<ffffffff81116ad4>] perf_event_overflow+0x14/0x20 [<ffffffff8102a190>] intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x180/0x300 [<ffffffff813a0ed0>] ? ghes_read_estatus+0x90/0x180 [<ffffffff816550d1>] perf_event_nmi_handler+0x21/0x30 [<ffffffff81654851>] nmi_handle.isra.0+0x51/0x80 [<ffffffff81654a21>] do_nmi+0x1a1/0x380 [<ffffffff81653e7c>] end_repeat_nmi+0x1a/0x1e [<ffffffff8107aa05>] ? atomic_notifier_chain_register+0x35/0x60 [<ffffffff8107aa05>] ? atomic_notifier_chain_register+0x35/0x60 [<ffffffff8107aa05>] ? atomic_notifier_chain_register+0x35/0x60 <<EOE>> [<ffffffff8102b5dd>] mce_register_decode_chain+0x2d/0x120 [<ffffffffa00fdbdb>] sbridge_probe+0xa86/0xbab [sb_edac] [<ffffffff811eaf05>] ? sysfs_link_sibling+0xa5/0xe0 [<ffffffff81339c1c>] local_pci_probe+0x5c/0xd0 [<ffffffff8133b551>] pci_device_probe+0x101/0x120 [<ffffffff813fbf3e>] driver_probe_device+0x7e/0x220 [<ffffffff813fc18b>] __driver_attach+0xab/0xb0 [<ffffffff813fc0e0>] ? driver_probe_device+0x220/0x220 [<ffffffff813fa376>] bus_for_each_dev+0x56/0x90 [<ffffffff813fba5e>] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20 [<ffffffff813fb610>] bus_add_driver+0x1a0/0x270 [<ffffffffa000a000>] ? 0xffffffffa0009fff [<ffffffffa000a000>] ? 0xffffffffa0009fff [<ffffffff813fc6e6>] driver_register+0x76/0x130 [<ffffffffa000a000>] ? 0xffffffffa0009fff [<ffffffff8133b225>] __pci_register_driver+0x55/0xd0 [<ffffffffa000a033>] sbridge_init+0x33/0x1000 [sb_edac] [<ffffffff8100203f>] do_one_initcall+0x3f/0x170 [<ffffffff810b2c0e>] sys_init_module+0xbe/0x230 [<ffffffff8165b7a9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b ---[ end trace a7919e7f17c0a727 ]---The problem is that the system has multiple memory controllers but registers the same static
notifier_blockmultiple times. Fix this by moving the registration/unregistration to the module init/exit function.Cc <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Roland Dreier <[email protected]>--- drivers/edac/sb_edac.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)drivers/edac/sb_edac.c +3
-4@@ -1604,8 +1604,6 @@ static void sbridge_unregister_mci(struct sbridge_dev *sbridge_dev)debugf0 ("MC: " __FILE__": %s(): mci = %p, dev = %p\n" , __func__, mci, &sbridge_dev->pdev[0 ]->dev); -mce_unregister_decode_chain (&sbridge_mce_dec); -/* Remove MC sysfs nodes */ edac_mc_del_mc (mci->dev);@@ -1682,7 +1680,6 @@ static int sbridge_register_mci(struct sbridge_dev *sbridge_dev) goto fail0; } -mce_register_decode_chain (&sbridge_mce_dec);return 0 ; fail0:@@ -1811,8 +1808,10 @@ static int __init sbridge_init(void) pci_rc =pci_register_driver (&sbridge_driver); -if (pci_rc >=0 ) +if (pci_rc >=0 ) { +mce_register_decode_chain (&sbridge_mce_dec);return 0 ; + }sbridge_printk (KERN_ERR ,"Failed to register device with error %d.\n" , pci_rc);
drivers/edac/sb_edac.c static void __exit sbridge_exit(void) · line 1833
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/edac/sb_edac.c +1
-0@@ -1828,6 +1827,7 @@ static void __exit sbridge_exit(void) {debugf2 ("MC: " __FILE__": %s()\n" , __func__);pci_unregister_driver (&sbridge_driver); +mce_unregister_decode_chain (&sbridge_mce_dec); }module_init (sbridge_init);
Hi, please refer this:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/8/62
Quoted 2 lines
Hi, please refer this:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/8/62
Yes, your fix looks identical. However your changelog makes it sound a bit less severe that it is: on my system at least, it is an immediate hard hang the first time sb_edac is loaded, rather than requiring module unload or any memory errors to trigger.
Anyway I think the fix needs to get merged right away, and your patch is fine with me.
- R.
Quoted 11 lines · Roland Dreier
Quoted 1 line
Hi, please refer this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/8/62
Yes, your fix looks identical. However your changelog makes it sound a bit less severe that it is: on my system at least, it is an immediate hard hang the first time
sb_edacis loaded, rather than requiring module unload or any memory errors to trigger.Anyway I think the fix needs to get merged right away, and your patch is fine with me.
- R. --
Mauro told me some days before he will put this patch(with others) on another tree, test and then merge it.
Em 01-06-2012 04:16, Chen Gong escreveu:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 7 lines · Roland Dreier
Quoted 1 line
Hi, please refer this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/8/62
Yes, your fix looks identical. However your changelog makes it sound a bit less severe that it is: on my system at least, it is an immediate hard hang the first time
sb_edacis loaded, rather than requiring module unload or any memory errors to trigger.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Anyway I think the fix needs to get merged right away, and your patch is fine with me.
- R. --
Mauro told me some days before he will put this patch(with others) on another tree, test and then merge it.
It should be already at -next. I'll be likely sending them upstream tomorrow.
Quoted 5 lines
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-edac" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html