[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140912192659.GM4775@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:26:59 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Shan Wei <davidshan@...cent.com>,
Jet Chen <jet.chen@...el.com>, Su Tao <tao.su@...el.com>,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bobby.prani@...il.com,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [rcu] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
000000da
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:19:57PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > So, I am not seeing this failure in my testing, but my best guess is
> > that the problem is due to the fact that force_quiescent_state() is
> > sometimes invoked with preemption enabled, which breaks __this_cpu_read()
> > though perhaps with very low probability. The common-case call (from
> > __call_rcu_core()) -does- have preemption disabled, in fact, it has
> > interrupts disabled.
>
> How could __this_cpu_read() break in a way that would make a difference to
> the code? There was no disabling/enabling of preemption before the patch
> and there is nothing like that after the patch. If there was a race then
> it still exists. The modification certainly cannot create a race.
Excellent question. Yet Fengguang's tests show breakage.
Fengguang, any possibility of a false positive here?
Thanx, Paul
--
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