All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Linuxppc-dev <Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Cc: sachinp <sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	DIVYA PRAKASH <dipraksh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.35-stable/ppc64/p7: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage detected during 2.6.35-stable boot
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:26:06 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1280933767.8392.1.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1280739132.15317.9.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com>

Peter/Li,

Did you get a chance to see this ?

Regards--
Subrata

On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 14:22 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The following suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage is detected
> during 2.6.35-stable boot on my ppc64/p7 machine:
> 
> ==================================================
> [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> ---------------------------------------------------
> kernel/sched.c:616 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> 1 lock held by swapper/1:
>  #0:  (&rq->lock){-.....}, at: [<c0000000007ca2f8>] .init_idle+0x78/0x4a8
> stack backtrace:
> Call Trace:
> [c000000f392bf990] [c000000000014f04] .show_stack+0xb0/0x1a0 (unreliable)
> [c000000f392bfa50] [c0000000007c87b4] .dump_stack+0x28/0x3c
> [c000000f392bfad0] [c000000000103e1c] .lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xbc/0xe4
> [c000000f392bfb70] [c0000000007ca434] .init_idle+0x1b4/0x4a8
> [c000000f392bfc30] [c0000000007cad04] .fork_idle+0xa4/0xd0
> [c000000f392bfe30] [c000000000aefaac] .smp_prepare_cpus+0x23c/0x2f4
> [c000000f392bfed0] [c000000000ae1424] .kernel_init+0xec/0x32c
> [c000000f392bff90] [c000000000033f40] .kernel_thread+0x54/0x70
> ==================================================
> 
> Please note that this was reported earlier on 2.6.34-rc6:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127313031922395&w=2,
> The issue was fixed with:
> 	commit 1ce7e4ff24fe338438bc7837e02780f202bf202b
> 	Author: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
> 	Date:   Fri Apr 23 10:35:52 2010 +0800
> 	cgroup: Check task_lock in task_subsys_state()
> 
> According to:
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/1/883,
> 	commit dc61b1d65e353d638b2445f71fb8e5b5630f2415
> 	Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> 	Date:   Tue Jun 8 11:40:42 2010 +0200
> 	sched: Fix PROVE_RCU vs cpu_cgroup
> should have fixed this. But this is reproducible on 2.6.35-stable.
> 
> Please also see the config file attached.
> 
> Regards--
> Subrata
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Linuxppc-dev <Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Cc: sachinp <sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	DIVYA PRAKASH <dipraksh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.35-stable/ppc64/p7: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage detected during 2.6.35-stable boot
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:26:06 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1280933767.8392.1.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1280739132.15317.9.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com>

Peter/Li,

Did you get a chance to see this ?

Regards--
Subrata

On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 14:22 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The following suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage is detected
> during 2.6.35-stable boot on my ppc64/p7 machine:
> 
> ==================================================
> [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
> ---------------------------------------------------
> kernel/sched.c:616 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> 1 lock held by swapper/1:
>  #0:  (&rq->lock){-.....}, at: [<c0000000007ca2f8>] .init_idle+0x78/0x4a8
> stack backtrace:
> Call Trace:
> [c000000f392bf990] [c000000000014f04] .show_stack+0xb0/0x1a0 (unreliable)
> [c000000f392bfa50] [c0000000007c87b4] .dump_stack+0x28/0x3c
> [c000000f392bfad0] [c000000000103e1c] .lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xbc/0xe4
> [c000000f392bfb70] [c0000000007ca434] .init_idle+0x1b4/0x4a8
> [c000000f392bfc30] [c0000000007cad04] .fork_idle+0xa4/0xd0
> [c000000f392bfe30] [c000000000aefaac] .smp_prepare_cpus+0x23c/0x2f4
> [c000000f392bfed0] [c000000000ae1424] .kernel_init+0xec/0x32c
> [c000000f392bff90] [c000000000033f40] .kernel_thread+0x54/0x70
> ==================================================
> 
> Please note that this was reported earlier on 2.6.34-rc6:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127313031922395&w=2,
> The issue was fixed with:
> 	commit 1ce7e4ff24fe338438bc7837e02780f202bf202b
> 	Author: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
> 	Date:   Fri Apr 23 10:35:52 2010 +0800
> 	cgroup: Check task_lock in task_subsys_state()
> 
> According to:
> 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/1/883,
> 	commit dc61b1d65e353d638b2445f71fb8e5b5630f2415
> 	Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> 	Date:   Tue Jun 8 11:40:42 2010 +0200
> 	sched: Fix PROVE_RCU vs cpu_cgroup
> should have fixed this. But this is reproducible on 2.6.35-stable.
> 
> Please also see the config file attached.
> 
> Regards--
> Subrata
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2010-08-04 14:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-08-02  8:52 2.6.35-stable/ppc64/p7: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage detected during 2.6.35-stable boot Subrata Modak
2010-08-02  8:52 ` Subrata Modak
2010-08-04 14:56 ` Subrata Modak [this message]
2010-08-04 14:56   ` Subrata Modak
2010-08-09 16:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-08-09 16:12   ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-08-13  6:55   ` Subrata Modak
2010-08-13  6:55     ` Subrata Modak
2010-08-13  7:42     ` Dhaval Giani
2010-08-13  7:42       ` Dhaval Giani
     [not found]     ` <1281682514.5976.2.camel-NRFfyExJdYpgXGGE5LP+UZlqa2bBAFbm0E9HWUfgJXw@public.gmane.org>
2010-08-13  7:42       ` Dhaval Giani
2010-08-13  8:37   ` Subrata Modak
2010-08-13  8:37     ` Subrata Modak
     [not found]   ` <20100809161200.GC3026-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2010-08-13  8:37     ` Subrata Modak
2010-09-16 15:12   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-09-16 15:12     ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-09-16 15:50     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-16 15:50       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-16 15:50   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-16 15:50     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-16 16:12     ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-16 16:12       ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-09-16 18:19       ` Subrata Modak
2010-09-16 18:19         ` Subrata Modak

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1280933767.8392.1.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com \
    --to=subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=dipraksh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=sachinp@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.