Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:31:34 +0100 | Subject | Re: Linux 3.19-rc3 | From | Sedat Dilek <> |
| |
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > At Tue, 6 Jan 2015 11:06:45 +0100, > Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: >> > At Tue, 6 Jan 2015 10:34:30 +0100, >> > Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > [ Please CC me I am not subscribed to LKML ] >> >> > >> >> > [ QUOTE ] >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 05:46:15PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> > > It's a day delayed - not because of any particular development issues, >> >> > > but simply because I was tiling a bathroom yesterday. But rc3 is out >> >> > > there now, and things have stayed reasonably calm. I really hope that >> >> > > implies that 3.19 is looking good, but it's equally likely that it's >> >> > > just that people are still recovering from the holiday season. >> >> > > >> >> > > A bit over three quarters of the changes here are drivers - mostly >> >> > > networking, thermal, input layer, sound, power management. The rest is >> >> > > misc - filesystems, core networking, some arch fixes, etc. But all of >> >> > > it is pretty small. >> >> > > >> >> > > So go out and test, >> >> > >> >> > This has been there since just before rc1. Is there a fix for this >> >> > stalled in someones git tree maybe ? >> >> > >> >> > [ 7.952588] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 299 at kernel/sched/core.c:7303 >> >> > __might_sleep+0x8d/0xa0() >> >> > [ 7.952592] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 >> >> > set at [<ffffffff910a0f7a>] prepare_to_wait+0x2a/0x90 >> >> > [ 7.952595] CPU: 0 PID: 299 Comm: systemd-readahe Not tainted >> >> > 3.19.0-rc3+ #100 >> >> > [ 7.952597] 0000000000001c87 00000000720a2c76 ffff8800b2513c88 >> >> > ffffffff915b47c7 >> >> > [ 7.952598] ffffffff910a3648 ffff8800b2513ce0 ffff8800b2513cc8 >> >> > ffffffff91062c30 >> >> > [ 7.952599] 0000000000000000 ffffffff91796fb2 000000000000026d >> >> > 0000000000000000 >> >> > [ 7.952600] Call Trace: >> >> > [ 7.952603] [<ffffffff915b47c7>] dump_stack+0x4c/0x65 >> >> > [ 7.952604] [<ffffffff910a3648>] ? down_trylock+0x28/0x40 >> >> > [ 7.952606] [<ffffffff91062c30>] warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0xc0 >> >> > [ 7.952607] [<ffffffff91062cc0>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x50/0x70 >> >> > [ 7.952608] [<ffffffff910a0f7a>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x2a/0x90 >> >> > [ 7.952610] [<ffffffff910a0f7a>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x2a/0x90 >> >> > [ 7.952611] [<ffffffff910867ed>] __might_sleep+0x8d/0xa0 >> >> > [ 7.952614] [<ffffffff915b8ea9>] mutex_lock_nested+0x39/0x3e0 >> >> > [ 7.952616] [<ffffffff910a77ad>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 >> >> > [ 7.952617] [<ffffffff910a0fac>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x5c/0x90 >> >> > [ 7.952620] [<ffffffff911a63e0>] fanotify_read+0xe0/0x5b0 >> >> > [ 7.952622] [<ffffffff91090801>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xc1/0xd0 >> >> > [ 7.952624] [<ffffffff91242459>] ? selinux_file_permission+0xb9/0x130 >> >> > [ 7.952626] [<ffffffff910a14d0>] ? prepare_to_wait_event+0xf0/0xf0 >> >> > [ 7.952628] [<ffffffff91162513>] __vfs_read+0x13/0x50 >> >> > [ 7.952629] [<ffffffff911625d8>] vfs_read+0x88/0x140 >> >> > [ 7.952631] [<ffffffff911626e7>] SyS_read+0x57/0xd0 >> >> > [ 7.952633] [<ffffffff915bd952>] system_call_fastpath+0x12/0x17 >> >> > >> >> > [ /QUOTE ] >> >> > >> >> > I am seeing a similiar call-trace/warning. >> >> > It is reproducible when running fio (latest: v2.2.4) while my loop-mq >> >> > tests (see block.git#for-next) >> >> > >> >> > Some people tend to say it's coming from the linux-aio area [1], but I >> >> > am not sure. >> >> > 1st I thought this is a Linux-next problem but I am seeing it also >> >> > with my rc-kernels. >> >> > For parts of aio there is a patch discussed in [2]. >> >> > The experimental patchset of Ken from [3] made the "aio" call-trace go >> >> > away here. >> >> > >> >> > I tried also a patch pending in peterz/queue.git#sched/core from Eric Sandeen. >> >> > It's "check for stack overflow in ___might_sleep". >> >> > Unfortunately, it did not help in case of my loop-mq tests. >> >> > ( BTW, this is touching ___might_sleep() (note: triple-underscore VS. >> >> > affected __might_sleep() <--- double-underscrore). ) >> >> > >> >> > Let me hear your feedback. >> >> > >> >> > Have more fun! >> >> > >> >> > - Sedat - >> >> > >> >> > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-aio&m=142033318411355&w=2 >> >> > [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-aio&m=142035799514685&w=2 >> >> > [3] http://evilpiepirate.org/git/linux-bcache.git/log/?h=aio_ring_fix >> >> > [4] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/patch/?id=48e615e4c3ebed488fecb6bfb40b372151f62db2 >> >> >> >> [ CC Takashi ] >> >> >> >> >From [1]: >> >> ... >> >> >> >> Just "me too" (but overlooked until recently). >> >> >> >> The cause is a mutex_lock() call right after prepare_to_wait() with >> >> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in fanotify_read(). >> >> >> >> static ssize_t fanotify_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, >> >> size_t count, loff_t *pos) >> >> { >> >> .... >> >> while (1) { >> >> prepare_to_wait(&group->notification_waitq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); >> >> mutex_lock(&group->notification_mutex); >> >> >> >> I saw Peter already fixed a similar code in inotify_user.c by commit >> >> e23738a7300a (but interestingly for a different reason, "Deal with >> >> nested sleeps"). Supposedly a similar fix would be needed for >> >> fanotify_user.c. >> >> ... >> >> >> >> Can you explain why do you think the problem is in sched-fanotify? >> >> >> >> I tried to do such a "similiar" (quick) fix analog to the mentioned >> >> "sched, inotify: Deal with nested sleeps" patch from Peter. >> >> If I did correct... It does not make the call-trace go away here. >> > >> > Your code path is different from what Dave and I hit. Take a closer >> > look at the stack trace. >> > >> >> Yeah, you are right. >> I looked again into the code (see thread "Linux 3.19-rc3", I am >> reading offline). >> >> As said aio_ring_fix patchset and especially [1] fixed the issue for me. >> >> Can you confirm Peter's new patch works-for-you? > > Yes, it seems working for me at the last time I tried. > (BTW, you don't need to add #include <linux/wait.h>) >
Just one minute ago, I asked about that? Can you explain that - included by another include?
- Sedat -
| |