[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1268155703.10871.1872.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:28:23 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] WARNING: at kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c:3420
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 11:35 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:03 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> >>> ringbuffer resizing and reseting will increase the ->record_disabled
> >>> and then wait until a rcu_shced grace period passes.
> >>>
> >>> Contrarily, testing ->record_disabled should be at the same
> >>> preempt disabled critical region as writing into ringbuffer, otherwise
> >>> it will leave a window break ringbuffer resizing or reseting.
> >> So the resizing and the resetting need a synchronize_sched() after the
> >> disabling of the buffers, right?
> >
> > Looking at the code, the synchronize_sched() is already done in
> > ring_buffer_resize, and the caller (trace.c:tracing_reset() ) also
> > disables the ring buffer and calls synchronize_sched().
> >
> > With that, what other window is still opened (after this fix)?
> >
>
> This window is still opened: (RCU vs IDLE vs Tracing)
>
> synchronize_sched() does not protect preempt_disable()/enable() for
> idle process. But tracing(function_graph, function) introduce more
> preempt_disable()/enable() for idle process. It brings windows.
>
> I bet that this bug is not come from this window.
> (I added some strict code to RCU and did stress test,
> bug was still occurred.)
With Li's test, I was able to trigger the ring_buffer warning about
resetting while committing. I was still able to trigger it with your
patch to move the ring buffer disable code. But I did not trigger it
with both the ring buffer disable code _and_ your RCU fix.
But I was able to trigger the segfault that Li is seeing. That is most
likely a separate issue. I'm currently writing special debug code to
find out why that is happening.
Thanks!
-- Steve
--
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