[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mhng-65b6e1c4-82ac-4628-bc90-48dc917b193a@palmer-ri-x1c9>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:33:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To: bvanassche@....org
CC: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
longman@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Unexpected lockdep selftest failures
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 12:18:40 PST (-0800), bvanassche@....org wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With the for-next branch of this tree: git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block
> (commit 12ab2c13ca77 ("Merge branch 'for-6.13/block' into for-next")) I
> see the following:
>
>
> [ 0.887603][ T0]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.888763][ T0] | Wound/wait tests |
> [ 0.889310][ T0] ---------------------
> [ 0.889867][ T0] ww api failures: ok |FAILED|
> ok |
> [ 0.892597][ T0] ww contexts mixing: ok | ok |
> [ 0.894638][ T0] finishing ww context: ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.898020][ T0] locking mismatches: ok | ok |
> ok |
> [ 0.900689][ T0] EDEADLK handling: ok | ok |
> ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok |
> [ 0.908172][ T0] spinlock nest unlocked: ok |
> [ 0.909484][ T0] spinlock nest test: ok |
> [ 0.910902][ T0]
> -----------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.911824][ T0] |block | try
> |context|
> [ 0.912970][ T0]
> -----------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.913890][ T0] context: ok | ok |
> ok |
> [ 0.916613][ T0] try: ok | ok |
> ok |
> [ 0.919235][ T0] block: ok | ok |
> ok |
> [ 0.921852][ T0] spinlock: ok | ok
> |FAILED|
> [ 0.924666][ T0]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.925852][ T0] | queued read lock tests |
> [ 0.926506][ T0] ---------------------------
> [ 0.927132][ T0] hardirq read-lock/lock-read: ok |
> [ 0.928496][ T0] hardirq lock-read/read-lock: ok |
> [ 0.929860][ T0] hardirq inversion: ok |
> [ 0.931269][ T0] --------------------
> [ 0.931827][ T0] | fs_reclaim tests |
> [ 0.932383][ T0] --------------------
> [ 0.932932][ T0] correct nesting: ok |
> [ 0.934252][ T0] wrong nesting: ok |
> [ 0.935518][ T0] protected nesting: ok |
> [ 0.936784][ T0]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.937936][ T0] | wait context tests |
> [ 0.938516][ T0]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.939661][ T0] | rcu | raw |
> spin |mutex |
> [ 0.940646][ T0]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.941798][ T0] in hardirq context: ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.944946][ T0] in hardirq context (not threaded): ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.948072][ T0] in softirq context: ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.951206][ T0] in RCU context: ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.954345][ T0] in RCU-bh context: ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.957477][ T0] in RCU-sched context: ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.960612][ T0] in RAW_SPINLOCK context: ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.963927][ T0] in SPINLOCK context: ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.967252][ T0] in MUTEX context: ok | ok |
> ok | ok |
> [ 0.970571][ T0]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.971702][ T0] | local_lock tests |
> [ 0.972422][ T0] ---------------------
> [ 0.972965][ T0] local_lock inversion 2: ok |
> [ 0.974319][ T0] local_lock inversion 3A: ok |
> [ 0.975708][ T0] local_lock inversion 3B: ok |
> [ 0.977106][ T0] hardirq_unsafe_softirq_safe: ok |
> [ 0.978595][ T0]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.979723][ T0] | lockdep_set_subclass() name test|
> [ 0.980424][ T0] -----------------------------------
> [ 0.981123][ T0] compare name before and after: ok |
> [ 0.982423][ T0]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> [ 0.983434][ T0] BUG: 2 unexpected failures (out of 395) -
> debugging disabled! |
> [ 0.984441][ T0]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Is this a known issue?
I just ran into these as well. Looks like there's some discussion over
here <https://lore.kernel.org/all/Zw19sMtnKdyOVQoh@boqun-archlinux/>,
I'm trying to proposed fixes locally...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists