[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAVPGOOJ0NEWqF2w9zCLC1bpXeA_TwzenNo-a4kvR3tcbewnNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:15:40 +0100
From: Julie Sullivan <kernelmail.jms@...il.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel-mail <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: 3.0-rc kernels unbootable since -rc3
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 09:37:53PM +0100, julie Sullivan wrote:
>> > And here is what I am proposing sending upstream. I have your Tested-by,
>> > but had to make a small but very real change in order to make it work
>> > under all configurations that I test under. So could you please try
>> > the attached patch out? I am particularly interested in how it works
>> > out when CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=n.
>> >
>> > Thanx, Paul
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > rcu: Prevent RCU callbacks from executing during early boot
>> >
>> > Under some rare but real combinations of configuration parameters, RCU
>> > callbacks are posted during early boot that use kernel facilities that
>> > are not yet initialized. Therefore, when these callbacks are invoked,
>> > hard hangs and crashes ensue. This commit therefore prevents RCU
>> > callbacks from being invoked until after the scheduler is up and running.
>> >
>> > It might well turn out that a better approach is to identify the specific
>> > RCU callbacks that are causing this problem, but that discussion will
>> > wait until such time as someone really needs an RCU callback to be
>> > invoked during early boot.
>> >
>> > Reported-by: julie Sullivan <kernelmail.jms@...il.com>
>> > Tested-by: julie Sullivan <kernelmail.jms@...il.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
>> > index 7e59ffb..4c0210f 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
>> > @@ -1467,7 +1467,7 @@ static void rcu_process_callbacks(struct softirq_action *unused)
>> > */
>> > static void invoke_rcu_callbacks(struct rcu_state *rsp, struct rcu_data *rdp)
>> > {
>> > - if (likely(!rsp->boost)) {
>> > + if (likely(rcu_scheduler_active && !rsp->boost)) {
>> > rcu_do_batch(rsp, rdp);
>> > return;
>> > }
>> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
>> > index 14dc7dd..ca3c6dc 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
>> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
>> > @@ -1703,7 +1703,7 @@ static void rcu_initiate_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp, unsigned long flags)
>> >
>> > static void invoke_rcu_callbacks_kthread(void)
>> > {
>> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_scheduler_active);
>> > }
>> >
>> > static void rcu_preempt_boost_start_gp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>> >
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>> Is this to be applied on a clean v3.0-rc4? I tried this but I'm afraid
>> the boot crash is back again (on -rc5 and -rc6 too).
>
> I must confess that it did seem to be giving up a bit too easily. :-(
>
> So, I have created a new branch jms.2011.07.11a on the -rcu git tree at:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-2.6-rcu.git
>
> If the new branch jms.2011.07.11a fails and the old branch jms.2011.07.07a
> succeeds (both with CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=n), then that indicates that my
> mainlinable patch didn't delay the callbacks quite far enough. On the
> other hand, if both succeed, then that means that there is another bug
> lurking later on in the sequence of commits.
>
> Could you please test these out?
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
OK tested- jms.2011.07.11a fails. The other one's fine (I'm actually
running an -rc6 with its patches right now :-)
Julie
--
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