[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1570539989.5576.295.camel@lca.pw>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:06:29 -0400
From: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
john.ogness@...utronix.de, david@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_isolation: fix a deadlock with printk()
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 14:39 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 08-10-19 08:00:43, Qian Cai wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 8, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Have you actually triggered any real deadlock? With a zone->lock in
> > > place it would be pretty clear with hard lockups detected.
> >
> > Yes, I did trigger here and there, and those lockdep splats are
> > especially useful to figure out why.
>
> Can you provide a lockdep splat from an actual deadlock please? I am
> sorry but your responses tend to be really cryptic and I never know when
> you are talking about actual deadlocks and lockdep splats. I have asked
> about the former several times never receiving a specific answer.
It is very time-consuming to confirm a lockdep splat is 100% matching a deadlock
giving that it is not able to reproduce on will yet, so when I did encounter a
memory offline deadlock where "echo offline > memory/state" just hang, but there
is no hard lockup probably because the hard lockup detector did not work
properly for some reasons or it keep trying to acquire a spin lock that only
keep the CPU 100%.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists