[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1402563262.5171.2.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:54:22 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>, pmladek@...e.cz,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jet Chen <jet.chen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: console: lockup on boot
On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 10:26 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 11-06-14 23:07:04, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > The first patch fixed it (I assumed that there's no need to try the second).
> Good. So that shows that it is the increased lockdep coverage which is
> causing problems - with my patch, lockdep is able to identify some problem
> because console drivers are now called with lockdep enabled. But because
> the problem was found in some difficult context, lockdep just hung the
> machine when trying to report it... Sadly the stacktraces you posted don't
> tell us what lockdep found.
>
> Adding Peter Zijlstra to CC. Peter, any idea how lockdep could report
> problems when holding logbuf_lock? One possibility would be to extend
> logbuf_cpu recursion logic to every holder of logbuf_lock. That will at
> least avoid the spinlock recursion killing the machine but we won't be able
> to see what lockdep found...
Could tell lockdep to use trace_printk().
--
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