[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190627154011.vbje64x6auaknhx4@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:40:11 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs
On 2019-06-27 11:37:10 [-0400], Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Sebastian it would be nice if possible to trace where the
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special is set for this scenario of calling
> rcu_read_unlock_special, to give a clear idea about whether it was
> really because of an IPI. I guess we could also add additional RCU
> debug fields to task_struct (just for debugging) to see where there
> unlock_special is set.
>
> Is there a test to reproduce this, or do I just boot an intel x86_64
> machine with "threadirqs" and run into it?
Do you want to send me a patch or should I send you my kvm image which
triggers the bug on boot?
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists