lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: WARNING: at kernel/rcutorture.c:1243 rcu_torture_printk
Paul,

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 07:51:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 03:47:28PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> >
> > commit 911af505ef407c2511106c224dd640f882f0f590
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
> > Date: Mon Feb 11 10:23:27 2013 -0800
> >
> > rcu: Provide compile-time control for no-CBs CPUs
> >
> > Currently, the only way to specify no-CBs CPUs is via the rcu_nocbs
> > kernel command-line parameter. This is inconvenient in some cases,
> > particularly for randconfig testing, so this commit adds a new set of
> > kernel configuration parameters. CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_NONE (the default)
> > retains the old behavior, CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ZERO offloads callback
> > processing from CPU 0 (along with any other CPUs specified by the
> > rcu_nocbs boot-time parameter), and CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU_ALL offloads
> > callback processing from all CPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > However I guess it's a wrong bisect, the commit should be unmasking an
> > old bug because it merely provides more kconfig options.
> >
> > This warning happened only once in 74 boots of the kernel.
> >
> > I also attached the 2nd dmesg which shows boot hang for the same
> > kernel.
> >
> > Note that there are also 2 kernel hangs in the 74 boots. It should
> > not be an RCU problem, however for completeness, I also attach a dmesg
> > for your reference when considering this RCU warning.
>
> Either way, that is a nasty warning! You get this on recent kernels as
> well, I take it?

Yes, the warning is still in recent kernels, indicated from the last
lines of the bisect log.

911af505ef407c2511106c224dd640f882f0f590 is bad and its parent
34ed62461ae4970695974afb9a60ac3df0086830 is good:
> > git bisect bad 911af505ef407c2511106c224dd640f882f0f590 # 65 2013-06-07 16:14:41 rcu: Provide compile-time control for no-CBs CPUs
> > git bisect good 34ed62461ae4970695974afb9a60ac3df0086830 # 900 2013-06-08 04:57:34 rcu: Remove restrictions on no-CBs CPUs

After bisect, the script tries to confirm that
34ed62461ae4970695974afb9a60ac3df0086830 is really good by boot
testing it 2700 more times:

> > git bisect good 34ed62461ae4970695974afb9a60ac3df0086830 # 2700 2013-06-10 14:33:56 rcu: Remove restrictions on no-CBs CPUs

And continue to find out whether the linus/master and
linux-next/master are good/bad (here the results are both bad):

> > git bisect bad f43e7a34255a387930bc2bb826ec17c052ce975e # 14:34 0 Merge branch 'for-next'
> > git bisect bad c04efed734409f5a44715b54a6ca1b54b0ccf215 # 14:41 11 Add linux-next specific files for 20130607

Thanks,
Fengguang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-11 04:41    [W:0.126 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site