[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110523153602.GC4019@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 11:36:02 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Mysterious CFQ crash and RCU
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 02:00:13PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[..]
> > Is there any known issue or is there any quick tip on how can I
> > go about debugging it further from rcu point of view.
>
> First for uses of RCU:
>
> o One thing to try would be CONFIG_PROVE_RCU, which could help
> find missing rcu_read_lock()s and similar. Some years back, it
> used to be the case that spin_lock() implied rcu_read_lock(),
> but it no longer does. There might still be some cases where
> spin_lock() needs to have an rcu_read_lock() added.
In this case we take explicit rcu_read_lock() in call_for_each_cic()
and do not rely on that spin_lock() also means rcu_read_lock().
call_for_each_cic() {
rcu_read_lock();
hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(cic, n, &ioc->cic_list, cic_list)
func(ioc, cic);
rcu_read_unlock();
}
>
> o There are a few entries in the bugzilla mentioning that elements
> are being removed more often than expected.
Are you referring to my comments about additional messages of cgroup
changed. If yes, that issue has now been identified and I have posted
a fix to get rid of thos unnecessary calls.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/23/201
Is still there a need to enable CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD as the
kernel in question is non-preemptible one.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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