John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday 04 May 2007 10:53:27 pm Attilio Rao wrote: >> Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> recent changes (during the last 2 days,I guess tha acpi stuff) broke >>> -current for me: >>> >>> ad6: 476940MB <WDC WD5000KS-07MNB0 07.02E07> at ata3-master SATA300 >>> SMP: AP CPU #1 Launched! >>> panic: blockable sleep lock (sx) msi _at_ >>> /FlashBSD/src/sys/i386/i386/msi.c:374 >>> cpuid = 0 >>> KDB: enter: panic >>> [thread pid 0 tid 0 ] >>> Stopped at kdb_enter+0x30: leave >>> db> bt >>> Tracing pid 0 tid 0 td 0xc07c2d60 >>> kdb_enter(c07422df,0,c0746e47,c1420bdc,c07c2d60,...) at kdb_enter+0x30 >>> panic(c0746e47,c073180d,c0732bb2,c0764c8e,176,...) at panic+0x135 >>> witness_checkorder(c082f0fc,1,c0764c8e,176,c55c0980,...) at >>> witness_checkorder+0xd6 >>> _sx_slock(c082f0fc,c0764c8e,176,c1420c64,c06f7e65,...) at _sx_slock+0x5f >>> msi_map(100,c1420d08,c1420d04,c1420c94,c04b5cc5,...) at msi_map+0x22 >>> nexus_map_msi(c5552000,c55e4000,100,c1420d08,c1420d04,...) at >>> nexus_map_msi+0x1f >>> pcib_map_msi(c55d9080,c55e4000,100,c1420d08,c1420d04,...) at >>> pcib_map_msi+0x86 >>> pcib_map_msi(c55e4200,c55e4000,100,c1420d08,c1420d04,...) at >>> pcib_map_msi+0x86 >>> pci_remap_msi_irq(c55e4000,100,c06ecb73,c54fff78,100,...) at >>> pci_remap_msi_irq+0xeb >>> msi_assign_cpu(c55e6240,0,100,c079d170,c1420d70,...) at > msi_assign_cpu+0x68 >>> intr_assign_next_cpu(c55e6240,0,c07631d3,1c7,c54f3a44,...) at >>> intr_assign_next_cpu+0x23 >>> intr_shuffle_irqs(0,141e000,141ec00,141e000,0,...) at >>> intr_shuffle_irqs+0x5e >>> mi_startup() at mi_startup+0xa0 >>> begin() at begin+0x2c >> In this case the culprit is intr_table_lock spinlock I think. >> This can be fixed switching the msi lock to be a spinlock instead than a >> sx lock. > > Actually, I think the real fix is I need to better handle the locking for > assigning interrupts to CPUs. I have a question. Why you currently use a sx lock? There are places where msi functions can sleep? >> However I wonder, it is right to let sleepable lock to arise a WITNESS >> exception if the lock is acquired in a critical section? >> I can understand this is a simple way to detect if a spinlock has been >> previously called, but this leads to the 'false positive' case in which >> we can have something like: >> >> critical_enter(); >> sx_xlock(&lock1); >> etc.etc. > > This is wrong because once you do critical_enter(), you are free to assume > that you won't do a context switch until you critical_exit(), and sx_xlock() > would violate that if it blocked on the lock. Yes, this is right. AttilioReceived on Fri May 04 2007 - 17:58:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:09 UTC