[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <942e0ffb37a4580982206d72404c521d72d38314.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 13:54:34 -0400
From: Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion
On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 13:36 -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> Back to x86, we have:
>
> start_secondary()
> smp_callin()
> apic_ap_setup()
> setup_local_APIC()
> printk() in certain conditions.
>
> which is before smp_store_cpu_info().
>
> Can't we add a rcu_cpu_starting() at the very top for each start_secondary(),
> secondary_start_kernel(), smp_start_secondary() etc, so we don't worry about
> any printk() later?
This is rather irony. rcu_cpu_starting() is taking a lock and then reports
itself.
[ 8.826732][ T0] __lock_acquire.cold.76+0x2ad/0x3e0
[ 8.826732][ T0] lock_acquire+0x1c8/0x820
[ 8.826732][ T0] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x30/0x50
[ 8.826732][ T0] rcu_cpu_starting+0xd0/0x2c0
[ 8.826732][ T0] start_secondary+0x10/0x2a0
[ 8.826732][ T0] secondary_startup_64_no_verify+0xb8/0xbb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists