[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1341062889.27537.9.camel@lappy>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:28:09 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: rcu: BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#3, trinity-child19/5970
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 06:14 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 01:36:48PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 10:23 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Please see below for an untested patch that gets RCU out of this loop,
> > > but it is quite possible that something else is involved here, so it would
> > > be very good to get a lockdep run, if possible. My concern stems from the
> > > fact that interrupts were enabled during the call to __rcu_read_unlock()
> > > -- otherwise it would not have been preempted -- so the runqueue locks
> > > were presumably not held on entry to __rcu_read_unlock().
> >
> > I'll continue with the good news/bad news theme.
> >
> > Good news - the original problem I've reported seems to be gone.
> >
> > Bad news - I'm getting the following instead:
>
> Interesting...
>
> You are still running with lockdep?
It should be on, yes. I don't see anything in dmesg which would suggest
it got disabled before this spew.
I've attached my .config. I'm starting the kernel with "sched_debug
slub_debug=FZPU numa=fake=10" as well.
View attachment "config_fuzzkvm" of type "text/x-mpsub" (132782 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists