[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150722090256.GP25159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:02:56 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpufreq/ondemand: unpinning an unpinned lock.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:46:16PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 05:42 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:41:50AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 29529 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3497 lock_unpin_lock+0x109/0x110()
> > > > > unpinning an unpinned lock
> > > > > Call Trace:
> > > > > [<ffffffffae0d0ec9>] lock_unpin_lock+0x109/0x110
> > > > > [<ffffffffae7f93cc>] __schedule+0x3ac/0xb60
> > > > > [<ffffffffae7f9c41>] schedule+0x41/0x90
> > > > > [<ffffffffae7f9ff8>] schedule_preempt_disabled+0x18/0x30
> Lock pinning is new in v4.2-rc1. Adding Peter just in case there's some
> insight.
Hmm, weird. I've not seen it happen before.
There's potentially 3 unpin's in __schedule():
- the obvious one in the prev == next case,
- the on in context_switch(),
- the on in try_to_wake_up_local().
All 3 appear to be balanced; the first and second against the pin_lock()
at the start of __schedule() and the third against that and it repins
the lock against the first two.
Most curious.
--
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