[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140806.141603.1422005306896590750.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: ilya.dryomov@...tank.com, mingo@...nel.org, oleg@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] nested sleeps, fixes and debug infra
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:31:34 +0200
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:51:29AM +0400, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>
>> OK, this one is a bit different.
>>
>> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1744 at kernel/sched/core.c:7104 __might_sleep+0x58/0x90()
>> do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set at [<ffffffff81070e10>] prepare_to_wait+0x50 /0xa0
>
>> [<ffffffff8105bc38>] __might_sleep+0x58/0x90
>> [<ffffffff8148c671>] lock_sock_nested+0x31/0xb0
>> [<ffffffff81498aaa>] sk_stream_wait_memory+0x18a/0x2d0
>
> Urgh, tedious. Its not an actual bug as is. Due to the condition check
> in sk_wait_event() we can call lock_sock() with ->state != TASK_RUNNING.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what the cleanest way is to make this go away.
> Possibly something like so:
If you submit this formally to netdev with a signoff I'm willing to apply
this if it helps the debug infrastructure.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists