Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: lockdep WARNING on check_critical_timing() | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:00:29 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 09:59 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Greetings, > > This is possibly an aged warning. > > if (!hardirq_count()) { > if (softirq_count()) { > /* like the above, but with softirqs */ > => DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->softirqs_enabled); > > [ 3.600059] Testing tracer preemptoff: > [ 3.760076] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 3.760866] WARNING: at /c/kernel-tests/src/stable/kernel/lockdep.c:3506 check_flags+0x125/0x154() > [ 3.762160] Modules linked in: > [ 3.762643] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc3-00013-g01f8a27 #158 > [ 3.763679] Call Trace: > [ 3.764053] [<c1020916>] warn_slowpath_common+0x4d/0x62 > [ 3.764838] [<c105c000>] ? check_flags+0x125/0x154 > [ 3.765567] [<c102093f>] warn_slowpath_null+0x14/0x18 > [ 3.766317] [<c105c000>] check_flags+0x125/0x154 > [ 3.766998] [<c105e02f>] lock_acquire+0x3b/0xef > [ 3.767689] [<c12461ba>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3e/0x4e > [ 3.768494] [<c12404b8>] ? check_critical_timing+0x112/0x160 > [ 3.769340] [<c12404b8>] check_critical_timing+0x112/0x160 > [ 3.770047] [<c1027474>] ? __do_softirq+0x19b/0x1f9 > [ 3.770047] [<c1027474>] ? __do_softirq+0x19b/0x1f9 > [ 3.770047] [<c1088549>] trace_preempt_on+0x8d/0xc9 > [ 3.770047] [<c1027238>] ? __local_bh_enable+0x87/0x8a > [ 3.770047] [<c1046c85>] sub_preempt_count+0x7f/0x9c > [ 3.770047] [<c1027238>] __local_bh_enable+0x87/0x8a > [ 3.770047] [<c1027474>] __do_softirq+0x19b/0x1f9 > [ 3.770047] [<c10272d9>] ? ftrace_define_fields_irq_handler_entry+0x45/0x45 > [ 3.770047] <IRQ> [<c1027723>] ? irq_exit+0x4f/0xa9 > [ 3.770047] [<c1015e03>] ? smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x70/0x7e > [ 3.770047] [<c1246daf>] ? apic_timer_interrupt+0x2f/0x34 > [ 3.770047] [<c108007b>] ? ring_buffer_discard_commit+0x24c/0x24c > [ 3.770047] [<c1139c87>] ? __const_udelay+0x1/0x1c > [ 3.770047] [<c108566f>] ? trace_selftest_startup_preemptoff+0x74/0xed > [ 3.770047] [<c1085b57>] ? register_tracer+0x11c/0x1f7 > [ 3.770047] [<c13c1bf3>] ? init_function_trace+0xf/0xf > [ 3.770047] [<c13c1c00>] ? init_irqsoff_tracer+0xd/0x11 > [ 3.770047] [<c1001158>] ? do_one_initcall+0x70/0x118 > [ 3.770047] [<c13afa03>] ? kernel_init+0xec/0x169 > [ 3.770047] [<c13af917>] ? start_kernel+0x2f2/0x2f2 > [ 3.770047] [<c124773a>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10 >
This is the same as a previous bug. It is caused by rcu doing the check in the function tracer and then triggering a lockdep warning.
Paul,
Didn't we talk about having the rcu_dereference_raw() not do the check? The function tracer is just too invasive to add work arounds to prevent lockdep from screaming about it.
-- Steve
| |