From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, levon@movementarian.org
Subject: Re: BUG: spinlock recursion on 2.6.14-mm2 when oprofiling
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:01:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051125220117.GA1836@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051118152101.GA4690@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:21:01PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> [4300983.573000] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, sh/32089
> [4300983.573000] lock: f8f46418, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: sh/32089, .owner_cpu: 0
> [4300983.573000] [dump_stack+23/32] dump_stack+0x17/0x20
> [4300983.573000] [spin_bug+134/144] spin_bug+0x86/0x90
> [4300983.573000] [_raw_spin_lock+100/128] _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80
> [4300983.573000] [_spin_lock+9/16] _spin_lock+0x9/0x10
> [4300983.573000] [pg0+950630577/1068852224] task_free_notify+0x11/0x40 [oprofile]
> [4300983.573000] [notifier_call_chain+28/64] notifier_call_chain+0x1c/0x40
> [4300983.573000] [profile_handoff_task+30/64] profile_handoff_task+0x1e/0x40
> [4300983.575000] [__put_task_struct+99/272] __put_task_struct+0x63/0x110
> [4300983.575000] [__put_task_struct_cb+17/32] __put_task_struct_cb+0x11/0x20
> [4300983.575000] [rcu_do_batch+28/112] rcu_do_batch+0x1c/0x70
> [4300983.575000] [__rcu_process_callbacks+150/192] __rcu_process_callbacks+0x96/0xc0
> [4300983.575000] [rcu_process_callbacks+46/96] rcu_process_callbacks+0x2e/0x60
> [4300983.575000] [tasklet_action+113/208] tasklet_action+0x71/0xd0
> [4300983.575000] [__do_softirq+216/240] __do_softirq+0xd8/0xf0
> [4300983.575000] [do_softirq+56/64] do_softirq+0x38/0x40
> [4300983.575000] [irq_exit+58/64] irq_exit+0x3a/0x40
> [4300983.575000] [smp_apic_timer_interrupt+102/224] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x66/0xe0
> [4300983.575000] [apic_timer_interrupt+28/48] apic_timer_interrupt+0x1c/0x30
> [4300983.575000] [pg0+950632344/1068852224] mark_done+0x68/0x80 [oprofile]
> [4300983.576000] [pg0+950632568/1068852224] sync_buffer+0xc8/0x172 [oprofile]
> [4300983.576000] [pg0+950630643/1068852224] task_exit_notify+0x13/0x20 [oprofile]
> [4300983.576000] [notifier_call_chain+28/64] notifier_call_chain+0x1c/0x40
> [4300983.576000] [profile_task_exit+50/80] profile_task_exit+0x32/0x50
> [4300983.576000] [do_exit+26/1040] do_exit+0x1a/0x410
> [4300983.576000] [do_group_exit+51/176] do_group_exit+0x33/0xb0
> [4300983.576000] [sys_exit_group+17/32] sys_exit_group+0x11/0x20
> [4300983.576000] [syscall_call+7/11] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
Does the attached patch help? (Andrew asked me to look into this.)
The patch disables irq while holding the task_mortuary lock, thus
avoiding the self-recursion via RCU callbacks.
One concern on the attached patch is the possible effect on latency.
John, any reason why the dead_tasks list cannot be spliced onto a
local list, then freed outside of the task_mortuary lock? Any reason
why the dying_tasks list cannot be spliced onto the dead_tasks list
(an O(1) operation)?
Thanx, Paul
Signed-off-by: <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
buffer_sync.c | 10 ++++++----
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.14-mm2/drivers/oprofile/buffer_sync.c linux-2.6.14-mm2-fixmortuary/drivers/oprofile/buffer_sync.c
--- linux-2.6.14-mm2/drivers/oprofile/buffer_sync.c 2005-10-27 17:02:08.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.14-mm2-fixmortuary/drivers/oprofile/buffer_sync.c 2005-11-25 13:10:46.000000000 -0800
@@ -46,10 +46,11 @@ static void process_task_mortuary(void);
*/
static int task_free_notify(struct notifier_block * self, unsigned long val, void * data)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
struct task_struct * task = data;
- spin_lock(&task_mortuary);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&task_mortuary, flags);
list_add(&task->tasks, &dying_tasks);
- spin_unlock(&task_mortuary);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task_mortuary, flags);
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
@@ -431,11 +432,12 @@ static void increment_tail(struct oprofi
*/
static void process_task_mortuary(void)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
struct list_head * pos;
struct list_head * pos2;
struct task_struct * task;
- spin_lock(&task_mortuary);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&task_mortuary, flags);
list_for_each_safe(pos, pos2, &dead_tasks) {
task = list_entry(pos, struct task_struct, tasks);
@@ -449,7 +451,7 @@ static void process_task_mortuary(void)
list_add_tail(&task->tasks, &dead_tasks);
}
- spin_unlock(&task_mortuary);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task_mortuary, flags);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-25 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-18 15:21 BUG: spinlock recursion on 2.6.14-mm2 when oprofiling Wu Fengguang
2005-11-25 22:01 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2005-11-25 23:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-11-26 3:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2005-11-26 5:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20051125220117.GA1836@us.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=levon@movementarian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn \
/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.