* + ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch added to -mm tree
@ 2007-03-28 23:53 akpm
[not found] ` <01ef01c77bfe$4cdfe640$0202fea9@Jura>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: akpm @ 2007-03-28 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mm-commits; +Cc: jarkao2, jura, paulus
The patch titled
ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
out what to do about this
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.21-rc4 #1
> -------------------------------------------------------
> pppd/8926 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_key){-...}, at: [<c0265486>]
> dev_queue_xmit+0x247/0x2f1
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&pch->downl){-+..}, at: [<c0230c72>] ppp_channel_push+0x19/0x9a
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #3 (&pch->downl){-+..}:
> [<c013642b>] __lock_acquire+0xe62/0x1010
> [<c0136642>] lock_acquire+0x69/0x83
> [<c02afc13>] _spin_lock_bh+0x30/0x3d
> [<c022f715>] ppp_push+0x5a/0x9a
> [<c022fb40>] ppp_xmit_process+0x2e/0x511
> [<c0231a05>] ppp_write+0xb8/0xf2
> [<c015ec26>] vfs_write+0x7f/0xba
> [<c015f158>] sys_write+0x3d/0x64
> [<c01027de>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
>
> -> #2 (&ppp->wlock){-+..}:
> [<c013642b>] __lock_acquire+0xe62/0x1010
> [<c0136642>] lock_acquire+0x69/0x83
> [<c02afc13>] _spin_lock_bh+0x30/0x3d
> [<c022fb2b>] ppp_xmit_process+0x19/0x511
> [<c02318d3>] ppp_start_xmit+0x18a/0x204
> [<c0263a6f>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x1f6/0x2c4
> [<c026ded3>] __qdisc_run+0x81/0x1bc
> [<c026549e>] dev_queue_xmit+0x25f/0x2f1
> [<c027c75f>] ip_output+0x1be/0x25f
> [<c02788ce>] ip_forward+0x159/0x22b
> [<c027745c>] ip_rcv+0x297/0x4dd
> [<c0263698>] netif_receive_skb+0x164/0x1f2
> [<c022199d>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x12a/0x4b7
> [<c02209bc>] e1000_clean+0x3ff/0x5dd
> [<c0265084>] net_rx_action+0x7d/0x12b
> [<c011e442>] __do_softirq+0x82/0xf2
> [<c011e509>] do_softirq+0x57/0x59
> [<c011e877>] irq_exit+0x7f/0x81
> [<c0105011>] do_IRQ+0x45/0x84
> [<c0103252>] common_interrupt+0x2e/0x34
> [<c0100b66>] mwait_idle+0x12/0x14
> [<c0100c60>] cpu_idle+0x6c/0x86
> [<c01001cd>] rest_init+0x23/0x36
> [<c0377d89>] start_kernel+0x3ca/0x461
> [<00000000>] 0x0
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
>
> -> #1 (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}:
> [<c013642b>] __lock_acquire+0xe62/0x1010
> [<c0136642>] lock_acquire+0x69/0x83
> [<c02afc13>] _spin_lock_bh+0x30/0x3d
> [<c0266861>] dev_mc_add+0x34/0x16a
> [<c02ab5c7>] vlan_dev_set_multicast_list+0x88/0x25c
> [<c0266592>] __dev_mc_upload+0x22/0x24
> [<c0266914>] dev_mc_add+0xe7/0x16a
> [<c029f323>] igmp_group_added+0xe6/0xeb
> [<c029f50b>] ip_mc_inc_group+0x13f/0x210
> [<c029f5fa>] ip_mc_up+0x1e/0x61
> [<c029ab81>] inetdev_event+0x154/0x2c7
> [<c0125a46>] notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x39
> [<c0125a7c>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x8/0xa
> [<c026477a>] dev_open+0x6d/0x71
> [<c0263028>] dev_change_flags+0x51/0x101
> [<c029b7ca>] devinet_ioctl+0x4df/0x644
> [<c029bc03>] inet_ioctl+0x5c/0x6f
> [<c02596e0>] sock_ioctl+0x4f/0x1e8
> [<c0168c32>] do_ioctl+0x22/0x71
> [<c0168cd6>] vfs_ioctl+0x55/0x27e
> [<c0168f32>] sys_ioctl+0x33/0x51
> [<c01027de>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
>
> -> #0 (&vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_key){-...}:
> [<c0136289>] __lock_acquire+0xcc0/0x1010
> [<c0136642>] lock_acquire+0x69/0x83
> [<c02afbd6>] _spin_lock+0x2b/0x38
> [<c0265486>] dev_queue_xmit+0x247/0x2f1
> [<c02334f6>] __pppoe_xmit+0x1a9/0x215
> [<c023356c>] pppoe_xmit+0xa/0xc
> [<c0230c9a>] ppp_channel_push+0x41/0x9a
> [<c0231a13>] ppp_write+0xc6/0xf2
> [<c015ec26>] vfs_write+0x7f/0xba
> [<c015f158>] sys_write+0x3d/0x64
> [<c01027de>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> 1 lock held by pppd/8926:
> #0: (&pch->downl){-+..}, at: [<c0230c72>] ppp_channel_push+0x19/0x9a
>
> stack backtrace:
> [<c0103834>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
> [<c0103f16>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
> [<c0103f9d>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
> [<c01343cd>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x68/0x71
> [<c0136289>] __lock_acquire+0xcc0/0x1010
> [<c0136642>] lock_acquire+0x69/0x83
> [<c02afbd6>] _spin_lock+0x2b/0x38
> [<c0265486>] dev_queue_xmit+0x247/0x2f1
> [<c02334f6>] __pppoe_xmit+0x1a9/0x215
> [<c023356c>] pppoe_xmit+0xa/0xc
> [<c0230c9a>] ppp_channel_push+0x41/0x9a
> [<c0231a13>] ppp_write+0xc6/0xf2
> [<c015ec26>] vfs_write+0x7f/0xba
> [<c015f158>] sys_write+0x3d/0x64
> [<c01027de>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99
> =======================
> Clocksource tsc unstable (delta = 4686844667 ns)
> Time: acpi_pm clocksource has been installed.
...
lockdep has seen locks "-> #0" - "-> #3" taken in circular order, but IMHO,
lock "-> #3" (&pch->downl) taken after "-> #2" (&ppp->wlock) differs from
&pch->downl lock taken in "-> #0" (before &vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_key) and
lockdep should be notified about this.
Reported & tested by: "Yuriy N. Shkandybin" <jura@netams.com>
Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---
drivers/net/ppp_generic.c | 6 ++++--
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -puN drivers/net/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning drivers/net/ppp_generic.c
--- a/drivers/net/ppp_generic.c~ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning
+++ a/drivers/net/ppp_generic.c
@@ -1435,7 +1435,8 @@ ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
struct sk_buff *skb;
struct ppp *ppp;
- spin_lock_bh(&pch->downl);
+ local_bh_disable();
+ spin_lock_nested(&pch->downl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
if (pch->chan != 0) {
while (!skb_queue_empty(&pch->file.xq)) {
skb = skb_dequeue(&pch->file.xq);
@@ -1449,7 +1450,8 @@ ppp_channel_push(struct channel *pch)
/* channel got deregistered */
skb_queue_purge(&pch->file.xq);
}
- spin_unlock_bh(&pch->downl);
+ spin_unlock(&pch->downl);
+ local_bh_enable();
/* see if there is anything from the attached unit to be sent */
if (skb_queue_empty(&pch->file.xq)) {
read_lock_bh(&pch->upl);
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from jarkao2@o2.pl are
ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread[parent not found: <01ef01c77bfe$4cdfe640$0202fea9@Jura>]
* Re: + ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch added to -mm tree [not found] ` <01ef01c77bfe$4cdfe640$0202fea9@Jura> @ 2007-04-11 7:09 ` Andrew Morton 2007-04-11 8:52 ` Yuriy N. Shkandybin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Andrew Morton @ 2007-04-11 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yuriy N. Shkandybin; +Cc: jarkao2, paulus, netdev (added netdev) On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:57:33 +0400 "Yuriy N. Shkandybin" <jura@netams.com> wrote: > I've tested 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 > Linux vpn1 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 #4 SMP Wed Apr 11 03:34:26 MSD 2007 x86_64 > Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux > > warn appeares upon first pppoe connection to rp-pppoe server in kernel mode > > result: > ======================================================= > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 #4 > ------------------------------------------------------- > pppd/14305 is trying to acquire lock: > (&vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_key){-...}, at: [<ffffffff8022f90b>] > dev_queue_xmit+0x26b/0x300 > > but task is already holding lock: > (&pch->downl#2){-+..}, at: [<ffffffff80388d3c>] ppp_push+0x5f/0xa7 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #3 (&pch->downl#2){-+..}: > [<ffffffff80290c5f>] __lock_acquire+0xedf/0x1048 > [<ffffffff80290e17>] lock_acquire+0x4f/0x78 > [<ffffffff80388d3c>] ppp_push+0x5f/0xa7 > [<ffffffff80263434>] _spin_lock_bh+0x2a/0x39 > [<ffffffff80388d3c>] ppp_push+0x5f/0xa7 > [<ffffffff8038967d>] ppp_xmit_process+0x3d/0x590 > [<ffffffff8038b915>] ppp_write+0x105/0x140 > [<ffffffff802163f3>] vfs_write+0xa3/0xf0 > [<ffffffff80216e04>] sys_write+0x47/0x75 > [<ffffffff8025d11e>] system_call+0x7e/0x83 > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > -> #2 (&ppp->wlock){-+..}: > [<ffffffff80290c5f>] __lock_acquire+0xedf/0x1048 > [<ffffffff80290e17>] lock_acquire+0x4f/0x78 > [<ffffffff80389667>] ppp_xmit_process+0x27/0x590 > [<ffffffff80263434>] _spin_lock_bh+0x2a/0x39 > [<ffffffff80389667>] ppp_xmit_process+0x27/0x590 > [<ffffffff8038b78c>] ppp_start_xmit+0x1cc/0x250 > [<ffffffff803c1bff>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x22f/0x290 > [<ffffffff803ccbf1>] __qdisc_run+0xd1/0x1f8 > [<ffffffff8022f928>] dev_queue_xmit+0x288/0x300 > [<ffffffff80239b72>] ip_mc_output+0x292/0x3f0 > [<ffffffff803eb991>] raw_sendmsg+0x511/0x7c3 > [<ffffffff80245a25>] inet_sendmsg+0x35/0x55 > [<ffffffff80254da7>] sock_sendmsg+0xdf/0x102 > [<ffffffff8028f826>] trace_hardirqs_on+0xc6/0x160 > [<ffffffff802885da>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x46 > [<ffffffff80263324>] _spin_unlock_bh+0x2f/0x36 > [<ffffffff80230ec8>] release_sock+0xcd/0xd6 > [<ffffffff803dbcc2>] ip_setsockopt+0x142/0xbb3 > [<ffffffff803bf33c>] verify_iovec+0x3c/0xc2 > [<ffffffff803b8e9d>] sys_sendmsg+0x133/0x248 > [<ffffffff8028f826>] trace_hardirqs_on+0xc6/0x160 > [<ffffffff80282028>] getrusage+0x1b8/0x1d9 > [<ffffffff8028f826>] trace_hardirqs_on+0xc6/0x160 > [<ffffffff80262e27>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x37 > [<ffffffff8025d11e>] system_call+0x7e/0x83 > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > -> #1 (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}: > [<ffffffff80290c5f>] __lock_acquire+0xedf/0x1048 > [<ffffffff80290e17>] lock_acquire+0x4f/0x78 > [<ffffffff803c4f59>] dev_mc_add+0x40/0x169 > [<ffffffff80263434>] _spin_lock_bh+0x2a/0x39 > [<ffffffff803c4f59>] dev_mc_add+0x40/0x169 > [<ffffffff80403457>] vlan_dev_set_multicast_list+0xa7/0x2b8 > [<ffffffff803c4c64>] __dev_mc_upload+0x24/0x26 > [<ffffffff803c4ff7>] dev_mc_add+0xde/0x169 > [<ffffffff803f47d7>] igmp_group_added+0x56/0x5f > [<ffffffff8026322b>] _write_unlock_bh+0x2f/0x36 > [<ffffffff803f4965>] ip_mc_inc_group+0x105/0x17a > [<ffffffff803f49fc>] ip_mc_up+0x22/0x69 > [<ffffffff803f1b48>] inetdev_event+0x1b8/0x2f0 > [<ffffffff80281d69>] notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x6b > [<ffffffff80281dcc>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x9/0xb > [<ffffffff80281ddf>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x13 > [<ffffffff803c335d>] dev_open+0x7d/0x80 > [<ffffffff803c1527>] dev_change_flags+0x107/0x138 > [<ffffffff803f290c>] devinet_ioctl+0x5cc/0x720 > [<ffffffff803c2fec>] dev_ioctl+0x1fc/0x31b > [<ffffffff8022104f>] __up_read+0x3f/0x9d > [<ffffffff803f2d5d>] inet_ioctl+0x5d/0x77 > [<ffffffff803b854f>] sock_ioctl+0x4f/0x215 > [<ffffffff80241aca>] do_ioctl+0x2a/0x83 > [<ffffffff8022fe92>] vfs_ioctl+0x62/0x2b0 > [<ffffffff8028f826>] trace_hardirqs_on+0xc6/0x160 > [<ffffffff8024cef0>] sys_ioctl+0x41/0x65 > [<ffffffff8025d11e>] system_call+0x7e/0x83 > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > -> #0 (&vlan_netdev_xmit_lock_key){-...}: > [<ffffffff8028ded0>] print_circular_bug_entry+0x49/0x59 > [<ffffffff80290ad3>] __lock_acquire+0xd53/0x1048 > [<ffffffff8020a5d5>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x1a5/0x5e0 > [<ffffffff8028f7ea>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x8a/0x160 > [<ffffffff80290e17>] lock_acquire+0x4f/0x78 > [<ffffffff8022f90b>] dev_queue_xmit+0x26b/0x300 > [<ffffffff802633fb>] _spin_lock+0x25/0x34 > [<ffffffff8022f90b>] dev_queue_xmit+0x26b/0x300 > [<ffffffff8038d753>] __pppoe_xmit+0x1e8/0x265 > [<ffffffff8038d7dc>] pppoe_xmit+0xc/0xe > [<ffffffff80388d51>] ppp_push+0x74/0xa7 > [<ffffffff8038967d>] ppp_xmit_process+0x3d/0x590 > [<ffffffff8038b915>] ppp_write+0x105/0x140 > [<ffffffff802163f3>] vfs_write+0xa3/0xf0 > [<ffffffff80216e04>] sys_write+0x47/0x75 > [<ffffffff8025d11e>] system_call+0x7e/0x83 > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > other info that might help us debug this: > > 2 locks held by pppd/14305: > #0: (&ppp->wlock){-+..}, at: [<ffffffff80389667>] > ppp_xmit_process+0x27/0x590 > #1: (&pch->downl#2){-+..}, at: [<ffffffff80388d3c>] ppp_push+0x5f/0xa7 > > stack backtrace: > > Call Trace: > [<ffffffff8028e95b>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x7c/0x91 > [<ffffffff8028ded0>] print_circular_bug_entry+0x49/0x59 > [<ffffffff80290ad3>] __lock_acquire+0xd53/0x1048 > [<ffffffff8020a5d5>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x1a5/0x5e0 > [<ffffffff8028f7ea>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x8a/0x160 > [<ffffffff80290e17>] lock_acquire+0x4f/0x78 > [<ffffffff8022f90b>] dev_queue_xmit+0x26b/0x300 > [<ffffffff802633fb>] _spin_lock+0x25/0x34 > [<ffffffff8022f90b>] dev_queue_xmit+0x26b/0x300 > [<ffffffff8038d753>] __pppoe_xmit+0x1e8/0x265 > [<ffffffff8038d7dc>] pppoe_xmit+0xc/0xe > [<ffffffff80388d51>] ppp_push+0x74/0xa7 > [<ffffffff8038967d>] ppp_xmit_process+0x3d/0x590 > [<ffffffff8038b915>] ppp_write+0x105/0x140 > [<ffffffff802163f3>] vfs_write+0xa3/0xf0 > [<ffffffff80216e04>] sys_write+0x47/0x75 > [<ffffffff8025d11e>] system_call+0x7e/0x83 > > INFO: lockdep is turned off. Thanks. So you're saying that ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc6/2.6.21-rc6-mm1/broken-out/ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch did not fix anything? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: + ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch added to -mm tree 2007-04-11 7:09 ` Andrew Morton @ 2007-04-11 8:52 ` Yuriy N. Shkandybin 2007-04-11 8:58 ` Andrew Morton 2007-04-17 7:37 ` Jarek Poplawski 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Yuriy N. Shkandybin @ 2007-04-11 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: jarkao2, paulus, netdev > (added netdev) > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:57:33 +0400 "Yuriy N. Shkandybin" <jura@netams.com> > wrote: > >> I've tested 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 >> Linux vpn1 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 #4 SMP Wed Apr 11 03:34:26 MSD 2007 x86_64 >> Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux >> >> warn appeares upon first pppoe connection to rp-pppoe server in kernel >> mode >> > > Thanks. So you're saying that > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc6/2.6.21-rc6-mm1/broken-out/ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch > did not fix anything? As i understand this patch already in -mm tree, so I've booted into last mm kernel and received this locked warning. Or i've mistaked and should apply this patch manually? > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: + ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch added to -mm tree 2007-04-11 8:52 ` Yuriy N. Shkandybin @ 2007-04-11 8:58 ` Andrew Morton 2007-04-17 7:37 ` Jarek Poplawski 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Andrew Morton @ 2007-04-11 8:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yuriy N. Shkandybin; +Cc: jarkao2, paulus, netdev On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:52:28 +0400 "Yuriy N. Shkandybin" <jura@netams.com> wrote: > > > > (added netdev) > > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:57:33 +0400 "Yuriy N. Shkandybin" <jura@netams.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I've tested 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 > >> Linux vpn1 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 #4 SMP Wed Apr 11 03:34:26 MSD 2007 x86_64 > >> Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux > >> > >> warn appeares upon first pppoe connection to rp-pppoe server in kernel > >> mode > >> > > > > Thanks. So you're saying that > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc6/2.6.21-rc6-mm1/broken-out/ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch > > did not fix anything? > As i understand this patch already in -mm tree, so I've booted into last mm > kernel and received this locked warning. > Or i've mistaked and should apply this patch manually? No, that's OK - that patch is indeed in 2.6.21-rc6-mm1. It appears that it did not fix this bug. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: + ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch added to -mm tree 2007-04-11 8:52 ` Yuriy N. Shkandybin 2007-04-11 8:58 ` Andrew Morton @ 2007-04-17 7:37 ` Jarek Poplawski 2007-04-17 13:26 ` Michal Ostrowski 2007-04-19 5:30 ` Jarek Poplawski 1 sibling, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Jarek Poplawski @ 2007-04-17 7:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yuriy N. Shkandybin Cc: Andrew Morton, Paul Mackerras, netdev, Michal Ostrowski On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:52:28PM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: ... > >On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:57:33 +0400 "Yuriy N. Shkandybin" <jura@netams.com> > >wrote: > > > >>I've tested 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 > >>Linux vpn1 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 #4 SMP Wed Apr 11 03:34:26 MSD 2007 x86_64 > >>Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux > >> > >>warn appeares upon first pppoe connection to rp-pppoe server in kernel > >>mode > >> > > > >Thanks. So you're saying that > >ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc6/2.6.21-rc6-mm1/broken-out/ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch > >did not fix anything? > As i understand this patch already in -mm tree, so I've booted into last mm > kernel and received this locked warning. > Or i've mistaked and should apply this patch manually? Hi! Yuriy - thanks for testing my patch ...(pause) Not! It seems this patch is not visible in this version - probably is overpatched by something else. But your new log shows there is another connection between these locks (ppp_xmit_process and ppp_push instead of ppp_channel_push in "-> #0"), so the patch is not sufficient (and could be dumped). I don't know your vlans configuration, but it seems the real lockup isn't very probable here - it's rather lockdep question. I think vlan's too broad lockdep class is the main "guilty" here, but probably pppoe also could be enhanced: it's making the things unnecessarily complicated by calling dev_queue_xmit under ppp_generic's xmit locks. I wonder if there is any reason against using a tasklet here. I'll try to find more time to untie this yet - or maybe some maintainer will find this interesting, too... Regards, Jarek P. PS: sorry for late responding (vacations). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: + ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch added to -mm tree 2007-04-17 7:37 ` Jarek Poplawski @ 2007-04-17 13:26 ` Michal Ostrowski 2007-04-18 6:40 ` Jarek Poplawski 2007-04-19 5:30 ` Jarek Poplawski 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Michal Ostrowski @ 2007-04-17 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jarek Poplawski Cc: Yuriy N. Shkandybin, Andrew Morton, Paul Mackerras, netdev, Michal Ostrowski The "xmit" function of a PPP channel is a synchronous operation. If the transmission fails, we must notify the caller and let them re-submit the skb later. The return status of dev_queue_xmit is needed to determine the return code passed back to the caller and thus the call is made synchronously and not in a tasklet. Looking at the stack traces earlier in this thread, it seems to me that even if the PPPoE call was made in a tasklet, this same warning could be generated. -- Michal Ostrowski mostrows@earthlink.net Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 12:52:28PM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: > ... >>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:57:33 +0400 "Yuriy N. Shkandybin" <jura@netams.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I've tested 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 >>>> Linux vpn1 2.6.21-rc6-mm1 #4 SMP Wed Apr 11 03:34:26 MSD 2007 x86_64 >>>> Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 2.80GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux >>>> >>>> warn appeares upon first pppoe connection to rp-pppoe server in kernel >>>> mode >>>> >>> Thanks. So you're saying that >>> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc6/2.6.21-rc6-mm1/broken-out/ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch >>> did not fix anything? >> As i understand this patch already in -mm tree, so I've booted into last mm >> kernel and received this locked warning. >> Or i've mistaked and should apply this patch manually? > > Hi! > > Yuriy - thanks for testing my patch ...(pause) Not! > > It seems this patch is not visible in this version - probably > is overpatched by something else. But your new log shows there > is another connection between these locks (ppp_xmit_process > and ppp_push instead of ppp_channel_push in "-> #0"), so the > patch is not sufficient (and could be dumped). > > I don't know your vlans configuration, but it seems the real > lockup isn't very probable here - it's rather lockdep question. > I think vlan's too broad lockdep class is the main "guilty" > here, but probably pppoe also could be enhanced: it's making > the things unnecessarily complicated by calling dev_queue_xmit > under ppp_generic's xmit locks. I wonder if there is any reason > against using a tasklet here. > > I'll try to find more time to untie this yet - or maybe some > maintainer will find this interesting, too... > > Regards, > Jarek P. > > PS: sorry for late responding (vacations). > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: + ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch added to -mm tree 2007-04-17 13:26 ` Michal Ostrowski @ 2007-04-18 6:40 ` Jarek Poplawski 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Jarek Poplawski @ 2007-04-18 6:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michal Ostrowski Cc: Yuriy N. Shkandybin, Andrew Morton, Paul Mackerras, netdev, Michal Ostrowski On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 08:26:32AM -0500, Michal Ostrowski wrote: > The "xmit" function of a PPP channel is a synchronous operation. If the > transmission fails, we must notify the caller and let them re-submit the > skb later. The return status of dev_queue_xmit is needed to determine > the return code passed back to the caller and thus the call is made > synchronously and not in a tasklet. Sure! But on the other hand: - the return code from dev_queue_xmit doesn't guarantee the transmission won't fail, - similar code in ppp_async: ppp_async_send isn't so truthful and doesn't even check the return from ppp_async_push; BTW - probably other layers should care for transmission errors and re-submiting, - maybe I'm wrong here, but I think every "layer" should look (work) similarly here: dev_queue_xmit (or qdisc_run) thinks it's talking to some independent network device, which after dev_hard_start_xmit (and dev->hard_start_xmit) does some transmission; if, instead of this, next dev_queue_xmits are called with xmit locks held from previous "devs", then it looks like logical recursion and locking is really hard to follow (even if it's OK). > Looking at the stack traces earlier in this thread, it seems to me that > even if the PPPoE call was made in a tasklet, this same warning could be > generated. Of course a tasklet by itself isn't a cure, but if dev_queue_xmit is done from tasklet - only locks got within this tasklet should be counted. Thanks for response & best regards, Jarek P. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: + ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch added to -mm tree 2007-04-17 7:37 ` Jarek Poplawski 2007-04-17 13:26 ` Michal Ostrowski @ 2007-04-19 5:30 ` Jarek Poplawski 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Jarek Poplawski @ 2007-04-19 5:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yuriy N. Shkandybin Cc: Andrew Morton, Paul Mackerras, netdev, Michal Ostrowski On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 09:37:44AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote: ... > Yuriy - thanks for testing my patch ...(pause) Not! > > It seems this patch is not visible in this version - probably ... Sorry! It was only something with my eyes. (Probably too much of Pamela!). Jarek P. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-04-19 5:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-03-28 23:53 + ppp_generic-fix-lockdep-warning.patch added to -mm tree akpm
[not found] ` <01ef01c77bfe$4cdfe640$0202fea9@Jura>
2007-04-11 7:09 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-11 8:52 ` Yuriy N. Shkandybin
2007-04-11 8:58 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-17 7:37 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-04-17 13:26 ` Michal Ostrowski
2007-04-18 6:40 ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-04-19 5:30 ` Jarek Poplawski
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.