[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGdX0WGfDm7jHreSREM8PdUUA9zcdDBz8rF2LJC-h7imfMq8jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:13:22 +0800
From: Jovi Zhangwei <jovi.zhangwei@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: sched: spinlock recursion in sched_rr_get_interval
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> I've also had this one, which looks similar:
>>
>> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
>> [10375.006573] lock: 0xffff8803a0fd7740, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: modprobe/10965, .owner_cpu: 15
>> [10375.007412] CPU: 0 PID: 10965 Comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 3.16.0-rc3-next-20140704-sasha-00023-g26c0906-dirty #765
>
> Something's fucked; so we have:
>
> debug_spin_lock_before()
> SPIN_BUG_ON(lock->owner == current, "recursion");
>
> Causing that, _HOWEVER_ look at .owner_cpu and the reporting cpu!! How
> can the lock owner, own the lock on cpu 15 and again contend with it on
> CPU 0. That's impossible.
>
> About when-ish did you start seeing things like this? Lemme go stare
> hard at recent changes.
Peter, any new update on this issue?
Recently we also found a similar deadlock in our box, but with
3.4-stable kernel.
<0>[177064.149832] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#11, current: IVS_RcvReq1/16444
<0>[177064.149840] lock: <NULL>/0xffff88017afd5640, .magic: dead4ead,
.owner: IVS_RcvReq1/16444, .owner_cpu: 14
Thanks.
Jovi
--
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