[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <549D07CD.8000204@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 02:01:33 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, rui.xiang@...wei.com,
wengmeiling.weng@...wei.com
Subject: Re: sched: spinlock recursion in sched_rr_get_interval
On 12/26/2014 01:45 AM, Li Bin wrote:
> On 2014/7/8 4:05, Peter Zijlstra 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");
>> >
> Hello,
> Does ACCESS_ONCE() can help this issue? I have no evidence that its lack is
> responsible for the issue, but I think here need it indeed. Is that right?
>
> SPIN_BUG_ON(ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner) == current, "recursion");
Could you explain a bit more why do you think it's needed?
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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