Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Apr 2015 21:36:55 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: inconsistent lock state with tick_broadcast_lock |
| |
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Thomas/Rafael, > > With latest mainline(commit 27cf3a16b2535a490f8cf1d29a6634f1c70f7831), > and lockdep enabled I see the following inconsistent lock state log. > I am not sure if it's related to recent changes in tick-broadcast or I > might be missing any config ?
It's surely not the config.
> inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage.
> [<c0014b1d>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0011659>] (show_stack+0x11/0x14) > [<c0011659>] (show_stack) from [<c05168b9>] (dump_stack+0x6d/0x78) > [<c05168b9>] (dump_stack) from [<c0057519>] (print_usage_bug+0x1d9/0x260) > [<c0057519>] (print_usage_bug) from [<c0057713>] (mark_lock+0x173/0x5d0) > [<c0057713>] (mark_lock) from [<c005864d>] (__lock_acquire+0x699/0x19ec) > [<c005864d>] (__lock_acquire) from [<c005a0f9>] (lock_acquire+0x79/0xe8) > [<c005a0f9>] (lock_acquire) from [<c051b4d3>] (_raw_spin_lock+0x23/0x30) > [<c051b4d3>] (_raw_spin_lock) from [<c0081401>] > (tick_broadcast_oneshot_control+0x45/0x1ec) > [<c0081401>] (tick_broadcast_oneshot_control) from [<c0050273>] > (cpu_startup_entry+0x2c3/0x2f8) > [<c0050273>] (cpu_startup_entry) from [<800093d1>] (0x800093d1)
So tick_broadcast_oneshot_control is called from cpu_startup_entry with interrupts enabled. That's from the guts of the idle loop. So something in the idle magic enables interrupts where it should not.
> Also with CPUIdle enabled, the system has spinlock lockup as below: > > BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/0/0 > lock: tick_broadcast_lock+0x0/0x40, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: swapper/0/0, > .owner_cpu: 0 > CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.0.0 #1 > Hardware name: ARM-Versatile Express > [<c0014b1d>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0011659>] (show_stack+0x11/0x14) > [<c0011659>] (show_stack) from [<c05168b9>] (dump_stack+0x6d/0x78) > [<c05168b9>] (dump_stack) from [<c005c897>] (do_raw_spin_lock+0xc3/0x144) > [<c005c897>] (do_raw_spin_lock) from [<c00811f1>] > (tick_handle_oneshot_broadcast+0x25/0x164) > [<c00811f1>] (tick_handle_oneshot_broadcast) from [<c001dd21>] > (sp804_timer_interrupt+0x31/0x34) > [<c001dd21>] (sp804_timer_interrupt) from [<c0067ed9>] > (handle_irq_event_percpu+0x45/0x154) > [<c0067ed9>] (handle_irq_event_percpu) from [<c0068017>] > (handle_irq_event+0x2f/0x44) > [<c0068017>] (handle_irq_event) from [<c0069ed3>] > (handle_fasteoi_irq+0x6f/0xf0) > [<c0069ed3>] (handle_fasteoi_irq) from [<c00677bf>] > (generic_handle_irq+0x23/0x2c) > [<c00677bf>] (generic_handle_irq) from [<c0067a05>] > (__handle_domain_irq+0x45/0x84) > [<c0067a05>] (__handle_domain_irq) from [<c0009303>] > (gic_handle_irq+0x27/0x50) > [<c0009303>] (gic_handle_irq) from [<c0011eff>] (__irq_svc+0x3f/0x64) > Exception stack(0xc07e7ee0 to 0xc07e7f28) > 7ee0: 00000000 00000001 00000000 00000000 c07ed938 c07f6e10 c0081431 60000153 > 7f00: 00000001 c0865a80 c07e7f88 c051dfc8 00000000 c07e7f28 c005a40b c005a466 > 7f20: 60000173 ffffffff > [<c0011eff>] (__irq_svc) from [<c005a466>] (lock_release+0xaa/0x1c4) > [<c005a466>] (lock_release) from [<c051b679>] (_raw_spin_unlock+0x15/0x1c) > [<c051b679>] (_raw_spin_unlock) from [<c0081431>] > (tick_broadcast_oneshot_control+0x75/0x1ec) > [<c0081431>] (tick_broadcast_oneshot_control) from [<c0050273>] > (cpu_startup_entry+0x2c3/0x2f8) > [<c0050273>] (cpu_startup_entry) from [<c077ea47>] (start_kernel+0x327/0x330)
Which is exactly the lockup which lockdep warned about ....
Thanks,
tglx
| |