[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151104143419.GY3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:34:19 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: perf related lockdep bug
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:01:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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.
>
> This one only happens during boot time, but it would be good hygiene
> in any case. May I have your SOB on this?
Of course,
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
--
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