From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug()
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:04:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1347530696.15764.117.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <503446AA.2020004@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 10:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug:
>
> [ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002
> [ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
> [ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34
> [ 0.045861] Call Trace:
> [ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70
> [ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10
> [ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450
> [ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70
> [ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90
> [ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0
> [ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30
> [ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70
> [ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30
> [ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50
> [ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370
> [ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0
> [ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0
> [ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310
> [ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744
> [ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50
> [ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680
> [ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
> [ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
> [ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f
> [ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
> [ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
>
> It was caused by that:
>
> native_smp_prepare_cpus()
> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
> mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs
> __might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check
> might_resched()
> __schedule()
> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
> schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug
>
> The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted
> while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug.
>
> This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check
> until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
> */
> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state))
> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state
> + && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
> __schedule_bug(prev);
> rcu_sleep_check();
>
No this is very very wrong.. we avoid the might_sleep bug on !
SYSTEM_RUNNING because while we _might_ sleep, we should _never_
actually sleep under those conditions.
So hitting a schedule() here is an actual bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-13 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-22 2:40 [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug() Michael Wang
2012-09-03 2:16 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-13 9:27 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-13 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2012-09-14 3:02 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-17 2:25 ` Michael Wang
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=1347530696.15764.117.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=wangyun@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.