All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: NetDev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: jarkao2@o2.pl
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!  (2.6.18.2 plus hacks)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 21:00:05 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4599E6D5.6050207@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45889C53.8000307@candelatech.com>

I finally had time to look through the code in this backtrace in 
detail.  I think it *could*
be a race between ip_rcv and inetdev_init, but I am not certain.  Other 
than that, I'm real
low on ideas.  I found a few more stack trace debugging options to 
enable..perhaps that
will give a better backtrace if we can reproduce it again.

I do have lock-debugging enabled, so it should have caught this if was 
an un-initialized access
problem, however.

More details below inline.

Ben Greear wrote:
> This is from 2.6.18.2 kernel with my patch set.  The MAC-VLANs are in 
> active use.
> From the backtrace, I am thinking this might be a generic problem, 
> however.
>
> Any ideas about what this could be?  It seems to be reproducible every 
> day or
> two, but no known way to make it happen quickly...
>
> Kernel is SMP, PREEMPT.
>
>
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78104252>] show_trace+0x12/0x20
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78104929>] dump_stack+0x19/0x20
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<7814c88b>] softlockup_tick+0x9b/0xd0
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<7812a992>] 
> run_local_timers+0x12/0x20
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<7812ac08>] 
> update_process_times+0x38/0x80
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78112796>] 
> smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x66/0x70
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78103baa>] 
> apic_timer_interrupt+0x2a/0x30
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78354e8c>] _read_lock+0x3c/0x50
 > Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78331f42>] ip_check_mc+0x22/0xb0
This is blocked on:
igmp.c:    read_lock(&in_dev->mc_list_lock);

> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<783068bf>] 
> ip_route_input+0x17f/0xef0
route.c:            int our = ip_check_mc(in_dev, daddr, saddr, 
skb->nh.iph->protocol);
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78309c59>] ip_rcv+0x349/0x580
?? Called by a macro maybe?  Can't find an obvious call to the 
ip_route_input.
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<782ec98d>] 
> netif_receive_skb+0x36d/0x3b0
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<782ee50c>] 
> process_backlog+0x9c/0x130
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<782ee795>] net_rx_action+0xc5/0x1f0
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78125e58>] __do_softirq+0x88/0x110
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78125f59>] do_softirq+0x79/0x80
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<781260ed>] irq_exit+0x5d/0x60
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78105a6d>] do_IRQ+0x4d/0xa0
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78103ae9>] 
> common_interrupt+0x25/0x2c
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78354c45>] _spin_lock+0x35/0x50
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<781aab1d>] proc_register+0x2d/0x110
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<781ab23d>] 
> create_proc_entry+0x5d/0xd0
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<7812873b>] 
> register_proc_table+0x6b/0x110
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78128771>] 
> register_proc_table+0xa1/0x110
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost last message repeated 3 times
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<7812886d>] 
> register_sysctl_table+0x8d/0xc0
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<7832f0c9>] 
> devinet_sysctl_register+0x109/0x150

This devinet_sysctl_register is called right before the ip_mc_init_dev 
call is made, and
that call is used to initialize the multicast lock that is blocked on at 
the top of this backtrace.
This *could* be the race, but only if the entities in question are the 
same thing.  I don't see
any way to determine whether they are or not based on the backtrace.

I looked through all of the uses of the mc_list_lock, and the places 
where it does a write_lock
are few and appear to be correct with no possibility of deadlocking.  If 
a lock was un-initialized, then
that could perhaps explain why it is able to deadlock (though, that 
should have triggered a different
bug report since I have spin/rw-lock debugging enabled.)

> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<7832f2ea>] inetdev_init+0xea/0x160
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<7832fa2e>] 
> inet_rtm_newaddr+0x16e/0x190
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<782f58a9>] 
> rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x169/0x230
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78300ed0>] 
> netlink_run_queue+0x90/0x140
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<782f56dc>] rtnetlink_rcv+0x2c/0x50
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<783014a5>] 
> netlink_data_ready+0x15/0x60
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78300167>] netlink_sendskb+0x27/0x50
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<78300bab>] 
> netlink_unicast+0x15b/0x1f0
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<783013ab>] 
> netlink_sendmsg+0x20b/0x2f0
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<782e12bc>] sock_sendmsg+0xfc/0x120
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<782e1a5a>] sys_sendmsg+0x10a/0x220
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<782e3311>] 
> sys_socketcall+0x261/0x290
> Dec 19 04:49:33 localhost kernel:  [<7810307d>] 
> sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d
> Dec 19 04:52:17 localhost sshd[32311]: gethostby*.getanswer: asked for 
> "203.60.60.10.in-addr.arpa IN PTR", got type "A"
>


-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> 
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com



  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-01-02  4:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-12-20  2:13 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks) Ben Greear
2006-12-22  7:13 ` [PATCH] igmp: spin_lock_bh in timer (Re: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!) Jarek Poplawski
2006-12-22  7:42   ` Jarek Poplawski
2006-12-22 13:47     ` Ben Greear
2006-12-22 14:05     ` Ben Greear
2006-12-27  8:24       ` Jarek Poplawski
2006-12-27 16:16         ` Ben Greear
2006-12-28 12:56           ` Jarek Poplawski
2006-12-29 11:16           ` Jarek Poplawski
2006-12-22  9:48   ` Jarek Poplawski
2006-12-22 11:16   ` Herbert Xu
2006-12-22 12:53     ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-02  5:00 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2007-01-02  7:39   ` BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks) Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-02  8:23     ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-02  9:23       ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-02 23:35   ` David Stevens
2007-01-02 23:43     ` Ben Greear
2007-01-03  8:07     ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-03  8:28       ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-03 16:53         ` Ben Greear
2007-01-03 22:14   ` David Stevens
2007-01-03 23:13     ` David Stevens
2007-01-03 23:35       ` Ben Greear
2007-01-03 23:56         ` David Stevens
2007-01-04  0:30       ` Herbert Xu
2007-01-04  1:02         ` Ben Greear
2007-01-04  1:14           ` Herbert Xu
2007-01-04  5:41           ` David Stevens
2007-01-04  5:34         ` David Stevens
2007-01-04  6:26           ` Herbert Xu
2007-01-04  8:03             ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-04  8:29               ` Herbert Xu
2007-01-04  8:50                 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-04 10:27                   ` Herbert Xu
2007-01-04 11:04                     ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-04 17:04                       ` Ben Greear
2007-01-05 13:55                         ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-04 20:33             ` David Miller
2007-01-05  6:38               ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-05  9:38                 ` Herbert Xu
2007-01-05 11:19                   ` [PATCH] devinet: inetdev_init out label moved after RCU assignment Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-05 11:23                     ` Herbert Xu
2007-01-05 11:37                       ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-09 22:38                       ` David Miller
2007-01-05 19:52                     ` David Stevens
2007-01-05 20:33               ` BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! (2.6.18.2 plus hacks) Ben Greear
2007-01-05 20:34                 ` David Miller
2007-01-08  6:53                 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-08 16:57                   ` Ben Greear
2007-01-08 18:03                     ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-01-09  8:10                       ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-10  9:04                         ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-10 12:50                           ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-10 20:01                             ` Stephen Hemminger
2007-01-11  7:24                               ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-11  7:40                                 ` David Miller
2007-01-11  8:29                                   ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-11  8:35                                     ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-11  8:39                                       ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-11  9:27                                         ` David Miller
2007-01-11 11:09                                           ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-01-11 17:42                                             ` RCU info Stephen Hemminger
2007-01-12 12:19                                               ` Jarek Poplawski

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=4599E6D5.6050207@candelatech.com \
    --to=greearb@candelatech.com \
    --cc=jarkao2@o2.pl \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /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.