[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161208133306.254xkj2d4a2c24yr@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:33:06 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: John Keeping <john@...anate.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Lockdep splat from destroy_workqueue() with RT_PREEMPT_FULL
On 2016-12-08 12:20:28 [+0000], John Keeping wrote:
> Hi,
Hi John,
> I am seeing the following splat when stopping btattach on v4.4.30-rt41
> with PREEMPT_RT_FULL with lockdep and slub_debug.
>
> The bad unlock balance seems to just be an effect of the lock having
> been overwritten with POISON_FREE, the real issue is that
> put_pwq_unlocked() is not resuming and unlocking the pool before the RCU
> work scheduled indirectly by put_pwq() has completed.
can you reproduce this? If so, is this patch helping?
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -1135,9 +1135,11 @@ static void put_pwq_unlocked(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
* As both pwqs and pools are RCU protected, the
* following lock operations are safe.
*/
+ rcu_read_lock();
local_spin_lock_irq(pendingb_lock, &pwq->pool->lock);
put_pwq(pwq);
local_spin_unlock_irq(pendingb_lock, &pwq->pool->lock);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
}
}
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists