Messages in this thread | | | From | Sasha Levin <> | Date | Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:29:19 +0200 | Subject | Re: New RCU related warning due to rcu_preempt_depth() changes |
| |
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 08:53:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 05:36:59PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Paul E. McKenney >> > <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:42:47AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: >> > >> Hi Paul, >> > >> >> > >> It looks like commit 7298b03 ("rcu: Move __rcu_read_lock() and >> > >> __rcu_read_unlock() to per-CPU variables") is causing the following >> > >> warning (I've added the extra fields on the second line): >> > >> >> > >> [ 77.330920] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at >> > >> mm/memory.c:3933 >> > >> [ 77.336571] in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, preempt count: 0, >> > >> preempt offset: 0, rcu depth: 1, pid: 5669, name: trinity >> > >> [ 77.344135] no locks held by trinity/5669. >> > >> [ 77.349644] Pid: 5669, comm: trinity Tainted: G W >> > >> 3.4.0-rc3-next-20120417-sasha-dirty #83 >> > >> [ 77.354401] Call Trace: >> > >> [ 77.355956] [<ffffffff810e83f3>] __might_sleep+0x1f3/0x210 >> > >> [ 77.358811] [<ffffffff81198eaf>] might_fault+0x2f/0xa0 >> > >> [ 77.361997] [<ffffffff810e3228>] schedule_tail+0x88/0xb0 >> > >> [ 77.364671] [<ffffffff826a01d3>] ret_from_fork+0x13/0x80 >> > >> >> > >> As you can see, rcu_preempt_depth() returns 1 when running in that >> > >> context, which looks pretty odd. >> > > >> > > Ouch!!! >> > > >> > > So it looks like I missed a place where I need to save and restore >> > > the new per-CPU rcu_read_lock_nesting and rcu_read_unlock_special >> > > variables. My (probably hopelessly naive) guess is that I need to add >> > > a rcu_switch_from() and rcu_switch_to() into schedule_tail(), but to >> > > make rcu_switch_from() take the task_struct pointer as an argument, >> > > passing in prev. >> > > >> > > Does this make sense, or am I still missing something here? >> > >> > I've let the test run for a bit more, and it appears that I'm getting >> > this warning from lots of different sources, would this >> > schedule_tail() fix all of them? >> >> If I understand the failure correctly, yes. If the task switches without >> RCU paying attention, the nesting count for both the outgoing and the >> incoming tasks can get messed up. The messed-up counts could easily >> cause problems downstream. >> >> Of course, there might well be additional bugs. >> >> I will put a speculative patch together and send it along. > > And here it is, testing just started. > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > rcu: Add RCU context switching to schedule_tail() > > The new rcu_read_lock_nesting and rcu_read_unlock_special per-CPU > variables must be saved and restored at every context switch, including > those involving schedule_tail(). This commit therefore adds the saving > and restoring to schedul_tail(). > > Reported-by: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >
Looks good here.
Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |