BUG: spinlock recursion (sys_chdir, user_path_at, do_path_lookup ...)

[u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:57:50AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > > [   75.280000]  r5:be961ee4 r4:00063015
> > > 
> > > I started to bisect, but already the first test case showed a different
> > > error (my getty dying every few seconds).
> > I bisected this one now, the first bad commit is
> > 
> > 	9c0729d (x86: Eliminate bp argument from the stack tracing routines)
> > 
> > .  It made a x86 specific change to include/linux/stacktrace.h.
> 
> As I said on IRC already, that's complete nonsense. The commit changes
> a function prototype which is only relevant for x86. So how should
> that affect ARM ?
hmm, the conversion that you probably mean is:

	22:26 < ukleinek> hmm, 9c0729dc8062bed96189bd14ac6d4920f3958743 is the first bad commit
	22:26 < tglx> lol
	22:26  * ukleinek goes to bed
	22:27 < ukleinek> then it can only be about include/linux/stacktrace.h
	22:27  * ukleinek goes to bed anyhow
	22:28 < rostedt> ukleinek: btw, you could do the bisect automated with ktest.pl :-)
	22:30 < tglx> ukleinek: right, a change to include/linux/stacktrace.h which is x86 specific
	22:33 < tglx> makes arm explode
	22:33 < tglx> rotfl

I admit I didn't look what was changed there and I understood your
statement as "the change to include/linux/stacktrace.h was x86 specific
and so broke ARM".

I will look into it again after lunch.

> > According to tglx the lockup above "is related to nicks scalability
> > stuff".  I havn't researched yet the offending commit.  Is that
> > necessary?
> 
> Only if you are interested that the problem gets fixed.
OK, will do.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |