[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151104105010.GA11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:50:10 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...il.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: perf related lockdep bug
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:28:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:21:51AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > The problem appears to be due to the new RCU expedited grace period
> > stuff, with rcu_read_unlock() now randomly trying to acquire locks it
> > previously didn't.
> >
> > Lemme go look at those rcu bits again..
>
> Paul, I think this is because of:
>
> 8203d6d0ee78 ("rcu: Use single-stage IPI algorithm for RCU expedited grace period")
>
> What happens is that the IPI comes in and tags any random
> rcu_read_unlock() with the special bit, which then goes on and takes
> locks.
>
> Now the problem is that we have scheduler activity inside this lock;
> the one reported lockdep seems easy enough to fix, see below.
>
> I'll got and see if there's more sites than can cause this.
*sigh* yes, there's gobs more. In fact the very first one I looked at:
rcu_dump_cpu_stacks()
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
dump_cpu_task()
pr_info()
That too will end up doing wakeups..
idem:
- print_other_cpu_stall()
- rcu_print_details_task_stall_rnp()
So just like you had to pull out all the rcu_gp_kthead_wake() calls from
under rnp->lock, so too must we pull out all implied wakeups, which very
much include 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