[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49EF5138.3030408@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:17:44 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] [GIT PULL] tracing: various bug fixes
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 09:49:14AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>
>>>> I spent the entire day (and half the night) debugging this. I was fighting
>>>> a case where the hardirqs_enabled flag in the task struct (lockdep flag)
>>>> was mysteriously being set and cleared. I stepped through the entire
>>>> kernel thread fork process (that was an exercise) and could not find
>>>> anything wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it would go away with printk's sometimes it would not. This was
>>>> driving me crazy, until I noticed that paravirt was enabled.
>>>>
>>>> Turning off paravirtualization here (so far) makes everything run
>>>> smoothly.
>>>>
>>>> Thus my theory is that there's something fishy with the modifying of the
>>>> irq enable/disable code when the system detects that it is running on bare
>>>> hardware.
>>>>
>>>> I'm too tired to look at this more. Ingo supplied a config to play with.
>>>> You can disable VSMP too and it will still trigger the crash.
>>>>
>>>> -- Steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's indeed a tricky one. I can reproduce it too, I will
>>> try to manage having an irqsoff trace at this point, hopefully I
>>> could get the source of this irq disabling...
>>>
>> It doesn't disable interrupts :-/
>>
>> It is the hardirqs_enabled flag in the task struct that mysteriously turns
>> off and back on. I put in printks when it is off in fork, and the next
>> printk shows that it turns back on (between the printks!!!).
>>
>> I printed the output of "irqs_disabled()" on each of these printks and
>> interrupts are always enabled. It is only the hardirqs_enabled flag that
>> is giving strange outputs.
>>
>
>
> Oh, weird...
>
>
>
>> Do you have CONFIG_PARAVIRT on? When I disabled it, I have yet to
>> reproduce the bug. But I've only rebooted a few times. I'm going to
>> continue to reboot to see if I can trigger it.
>>
>
>
> Yes it is enabled.
>
>
>
>
>> I'm thinking that the paravirt alternative code may have clobbered a
>> register in either the enable or disabling of interrupts. This might cause
>> a strange value to go into the hardirqs_enabled flag.
>>
>
>
>
> Ok I will try it without PARAVIRT and tell you if I can reproduce it.
>
Interesting. What code is generated for native_irq_enable/disable?
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists