Re: [BUG] Soft-lockup during cpu-hotplug in VFS callpaths

[Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@gmail.com>]

On poniedziałek, 5 września 2011 o 11:07:55 Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 09/01/2011 12:10 AM, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
> > On środa, 24 sierpnia 2011 o 15:44:55 Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> While running stressful cpu hotplug tests along with kernel compilation
> >> running in background, soft-lockups are detected on multiple CPUs.
> >> Sometimes this also leads to hard lockups and kernel panic.
> >> All the soft-lockups seem to occur at vfsmount_lock_local_cpu() or other
> >> VFS callpaths.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> [37108.410813] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 22s! [cc1:29669]
> >> <snip>
> >> [37108.694781] Call Trace:
> >> [37108.697306]  [<ffffffff81199e70>] ?
> >> vfsmount_lock_local_lock_cpu+0x70/0x70 [37108.704258]
> >> [<ffffffff81187cb5>] path_init+0x315/0x400
> >> [37108.709558]  [<ffffffff8127c398>] ? __raw_spin_lock_init+0x38/0x70
> >> [37108.715812]  [<ffffffff8118961c>] path_openat+0x8c/0x3f0
> >> [37108.721203]  [<ffffffff81012129>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0x10
> >> [37108.726597]  [<ffffffff8109416d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xcd/0x110
> >> [37108.732508]  [<ffffffff810a178d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0x10
> >> [37108.738498]  [<ffffffff8109421f>] ? local_clock+0x6f/0x80
> >> [37108.743970]  [<ffffffff81189a99>] do_filp_open+0x49/0xa0
> >> [37108.749362]  [<ffffffff811982f3>] ? alloc_fd+0xc3/0x210
> >> [37108.754665]  [<ffffffff8152584b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x40
> >> [37108.760575]  [<ffffffff811982f3>] ? alloc_fd+0xc3/0x210
> >> [37108.765875]  [<ffffffff81179607>] do_sys_open+0x107/0x1e0
> >> [37108.771352]  [<ffffffff810d610f>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x1bf/0x1f0
> >> [37108.777695]  [<ffffffff81179720>] sys_open+0x20/0x30
> >> [37108.782741]  [<ffffffff8152e202>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >> 
> >> Kernel version: 3.0.1, 3.0.3
> >> Hardware: Dual socket quad-core hyper-threaded Intel x86 machine
> >> Scenario:
> >> (a) Stressful cpu hotplug tests + kernel compilation
> >> 
> >> (b) IRQ balancing had been disabled and all the IRQs  were made to be
> >> 
> >>     routed to CPU 0 (except the ones that couldn't be routed).
> >> 
> >> (c) Lockdep was enabled during kernel configuration.
> >> 
> >> Steps (b) and (c) were done to dig deeper into the issue. However the
> >> same issue was observed by just doing step (a).
> >> 
> >> Definitely there seems to be a race condition occurring here, because
> >> this issue is hit after sometime, after starting the tests. And the
> >> time it takes to hit the issue increases as we increase the number of
> >> debug print statements. In some cases (especially when the number of
> >> debug print statements were quite high), the stress on the machine had
> >> to be increased in order to hit the issue within measurable time. In my
> >> tests, a maximum of about 2 to 2.5 hours was sufficient, to hit this
> >> bug.
> >> 
> >> Please find the console log attached with this mail.
> >> 
> >> Any ideas on how to go about fixing this bug?
> > 
> > It is a regression?
> 
> Hi Maciej,
> 
> Thank you for taking a look.
> Yes, it seems to be a regression. I tested out kernel 2.6.39.3 with similar
> test cases for quite a long time, and it did not hit any soft-lockup
> issues.

Thanks for the answer. I create bug entry:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42402

Regards
-- 
Maciej Rutecki
http://www.maciek.unixy.pl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html