* [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free
@ 2006-07-27 23:56 Thomas Gleixner
2006-07-28 5:22 ` Pekka Enberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-27 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven
x86_64, latest git
tglx
[ 57.971202] =============================================
[ 57.973118] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 57.973231] ---------------------------------------------
[ 57.973343] events/0/5 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 57.973452] (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210
[ 57.973839]
[ 57.973840] but task is already holding lock:
[ 57.974040] (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80290501>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290
[ 57.974420]
[ 57.974421] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 57.974625] 3 locks held by events/0/5:
[ 57.974729] #0: (cache_chain_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80290458>] cache_reap+0x28/0x290
[ 57.975171] #1: (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80290501>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290
[ 57.975610] #2: (&parent->list_lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8028f572>] __drain_alien_cache+0x42/0x90
[ 57.976056]
[ 57.976057] stack backtrace:
[ 57.976250]
[ 57.976251] Call Trace:
[ 57.976447] [<ffffffff802542fc>] __lock_acquire+0x8cc/0xcb0
[ 57.976562] [<ffffffff80254a02>] lock_acquire+0x52/0x70
[ 57.976675] [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210
[ 57.976790] [<ffffffff804a6b74>] _spin_lock+0x34/0x50
[ 57.976903] [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210
[ 57.977018] [<ffffffff8028f388>] slab_destroy+0xb8/0xf0
[ 57.977131] [<ffffffff8028f4c8>] free_block+0x108/0x170
[ 57.977245] [<ffffffff8028f598>] __drain_alien_cache+0x68/0x90
[ 57.977360] [<ffffffff80290501>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290
[ 57.977473] [<ffffffff8029069f>] cache_reap+0x26f/0x290
[ 57.977588] [<ffffffff80249a13>] run_workqueue+0xc3/0x120
[ 57.977701] [<ffffffff80290430>] cache_reap+0x0/0x290
[ 57.977814] [<ffffffff80249c91>] worker_thread+0x121/0x160
[ 57.977928] [<ffffffff802305d0>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x10
[ 57.978045] [<ffffffff80249b70>] worker_thread+0x0/0x160
[ 57.978158] [<ffffffff8024d7ba>] kthread+0xda/0x110
[ 57.978270] [<ffffffff8020af2a>] child_rip+0x8/0x12
[ 57.978381] [<ffffffff804a725b>] _spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x60
[ 57.978496] [<ffffffff8020a53b>] restore_args+0x0/0x30
[ 57.978609] [<ffffffff8024d6e0>] kthread+0x0/0x110
[ 57.978719] [<ffffffff8020af22>] child_rip+0x0/0x12
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-27 23:56 [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 5:22 ` Pekka Enberg 2006-07-28 6:14 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 14:53 ` Christoph Lameter 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Pekka Enberg @ 2006-07-28 5:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: tglx; +Cc: LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, Christoph Lameter Hi Thomas, On 7/28/06, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > x86_64, latest git > > tglx > > [ 57.971202] ============================================= > [ 57.973118] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > [ 57.973231] --------------------------------------------- > [ 57.973343] events/0/5 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 57.973452] (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 > [ 57.973839] > [ 57.973840] but task is already holding lock: > [ 57.974040] (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80290501>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290 > [ 57.974420] > [ 57.974421] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 57.974625] 3 locks held by events/0/5: > [ 57.974729] #0: (cache_chain_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80290458>] cache_reap+0x28/0x290 > [ 57.975171] #1: (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80290501>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290 > [ 57.975610] #2: (&parent->list_lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff8028f572>] __drain_alien_cache+0x42/0x90 > [ 57.976056] > [ 57.976057] stack backtrace: > [ 57.976250] > [ 57.976251] Call Trace: > [ 57.976447] [<ffffffff802542fc>] __lock_acquire+0x8cc/0xcb0 > [ 57.976562] [<ffffffff80254a02>] lock_acquire+0x52/0x70 > [ 57.976675] [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 > [ 57.976790] [<ffffffff804a6b74>] _spin_lock+0x34/0x50 > [ 57.976903] [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 > [ 57.977018] [<ffffffff8028f388>] slab_destroy+0xb8/0xf0 > [ 57.977131] [<ffffffff8028f4c8>] free_block+0x108/0x170 > [ 57.977245] [<ffffffff8028f598>] __drain_alien_cache+0x68/0x90 > [ 57.977360] [<ffffffff80290501>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290 > [ 57.977473] [<ffffffff8029069f>] cache_reap+0x26f/0x290 > [ 57.977588] [<ffffffff80249a13>] run_workqueue+0xc3/0x120 > [ 57.977701] [<ffffffff80290430>] cache_reap+0x0/0x290 > [ 57.977814] [<ffffffff80249c91>] worker_thread+0x121/0x160 > [ 57.977928] [<ffffffff802305d0>] default_wake_function+0x0/0x10 > [ 57.978045] [<ffffffff80249b70>] worker_thread+0x0/0x160 > [ 57.978158] [<ffffffff8024d7ba>] kthread+0xda/0x110 > [ 57.978270] [<ffffffff8020af2a>] child_rip+0x8/0x12 > [ 57.978381] [<ffffffff804a725b>] _spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x60 > [ 57.978496] [<ffffffff8020a53b>] restore_args+0x0/0x30 > [ 57.978609] [<ffffffff8024d6e0>] kthread+0x0/0x110 > [ 57.978719] [<ffffffff8020af22>] child_rip+0x0/0x12 Looks bad. cache_reap reap_alien (grabs l3->alien[node]->lock) __drain_alien_cache free_block slab_destroy (slab management off slab) kmem_cache_free __cache_free cache_free_alien (recursive attempt on l3->alien[node] lock) Christoph? Pekka ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 5:22 ` Pekka Enberg @ 2006-07-28 6:14 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 15:35 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 14:53 ` Christoph Lameter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pekka Enberg; +Cc: LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, Christoph Lameter On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 08:22 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Thomas, > Looks bad. > > cache_reap > reap_alien (grabs l3->alien[node]->lock) > __drain_alien_cache > free_block > slab_destroy (slab management off slab) > kmem_cache_free > __cache_free > cache_free_alien (recursive attempt on l3->alien[node] lock) > > Christoph? If you need more info, I can add debugs. It happens every bootup. tglx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 6:14 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 15:35 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 20:11 ` Thomas Gleixner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Gleixner; +Cc: Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > If you need more info, I can add debugs. It happens every bootup. Could you tell me why _spin_lock and _spin_unlock seem to be calling into the slab allocator? Also what is child_rip()? Cannot find that function upstream. There should be no lock recursion here because we are talking about alien cache arrays on different nodes. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 15:35 ` Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 20:11 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 20:18 ` Christoph Lameter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 08:35 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > If you need more info, I can add debugs. It happens every bootup. > > Could you tell me why _spin_lock and _spin_unlock seem > to be calling into the slab allocator? Also what is child_rip()? Cannot > find that function upstream. arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S child_rip: /* * Here we are in the child and the registers are set as they were * at kernel_thread() invocation in the parent. */ movq %rdi, %rax movq %rsi, %rdi call *%rax # exit xorl %edi, %edi call do_exit ENDPROC(child_rip) tglx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 20:11 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 20:18 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 20:27 ` Arjan van de Ven 2006-07-28 20:27 ` Thomas Gleixner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Gleixner; +Cc: Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 08:35 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > If you need more info, I can add debugs. It happens every bootup. > > > > Could you tell me why _spin_lock and _spin_unlock seem > > to be calling into the slab allocator? Also what is child_rip()? Cannot > > find that function upstream. > > arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S Ah. Ok wrong arch. Why does _spin_unlock_irq call child_rip and then end up in the slab allocator? Why does _spin_lock call kmem_cache_free? Is the stack trace an accurate representation of the calling sequence? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 20:18 ` Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 20:27 ` Arjan van de Ven 2006-07-28 20:27 ` Thomas Gleixner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2006-07-28 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Lameter; +Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, alokk On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:18 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 08:35 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > If you need more info, I can add debugs. It happens every bootup. > > > > > > Could you tell me why _spin_lock and _spin_unlock seem > > > to be calling into the slab allocator? Also what is child_rip()? Cannot > > > find that function upstream. > > > > arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S > > Ah. Ok wrong arch. Why does _spin_unlock_irq call child_rip and then end > up in the slab allocator? > > Why does _spin_lock call kmem_cache_free? > > Is the stack trace an accurate representation of the calling sequence? no not unless the person reporting it has set the various kernel debugging options, it's only a guestimate with noise in. > > -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 20:18 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 20:27 ` Arjan van de Ven @ 2006-07-28 20:27 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 20:35 ` Thomas Gleixner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:18 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 08:35 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > If you need more info, I can add debugs. It happens every bootup. > > > > > > Could you tell me why _spin_lock and _spin_unlock seem > > > to be calling into the slab allocator? Also what is child_rip()? Cannot > > > find that function upstream. > > > > arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S > > Ah. Ok wrong arch. Why does _spin_unlock_irq call child_rip and then end > up in the slab allocator? > > Why does _spin_lock call kmem_cache_free? > > Is the stack trace an accurate representation of the calling sequence? Probably not. Thats a call tail optimization artifact. I retest with UNWIND info =y tglx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 20:27 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 20:35 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 20:36 ` Christoph Lameter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 22:27 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Why does _spin_lock call kmem_cache_free? > > > > Is the stack trace an accurate representation of the calling sequence? > > Probably not. Thats a call tail optimization artifact. I retest with > UNWIND info =y [ 125.530611] input: AT Translated Set 2 keyboard as /class/input/input0 [ 128.510384] [ 128.510386] ============================================= [ 128.512303] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] [ 128.512415] --------------------------------------------- [ 128.512527] events/0/5 is trying to acquire lock: [ 128.512636] (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff802908c1>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 [ 128.513024] [ 128.513025] but task is already holding lock: [ 128.513225] (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80291bc1>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290 [ 128.513608] [ 128.513609] other info that might help us debug this: [ 128.513813] 3 locks held by events/0/5: [ 128.513917] #0: (cache_chain_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80291b18>] cache_reap+0x28/0x290 [ 128.514362] #1: (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80291bc1>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290 [ 128.514803] #2: (&parent->list_lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80290c32>] __drain_alien_cache+0x42/0x90 [ 128.515253] [ 128.515253] stack backtrace: [ 128.515448] [ 128.515449] Call Trace: [ 128.515740] [<ffffffff8020b75e>] show_trace+0xae/0x280 [ 128.515864] [<ffffffff8020bb75>] dump_stack+0x15/0x20 [ 128.515987] [<ffffffff8025447c>] __lock_acquire+0x8cc/0xcb0 [ 128.516178] [<ffffffff80254b82>] lock_acquire+0x52/0x70 [ 128.516369] [<ffffffff804a8374>] _spin_lock+0x34/0x50 [ 128.516562] [<ffffffff802908c1>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 [ 128.516799] [<ffffffff80290a48>] slab_destroy+0xb8/0xf0 [ 128.517034] [<ffffffff80290b88>] free_block+0x108/0x170 [ 128.517270] [<ffffffff80290c58>] __drain_alien_cache+0x68/0x90 [ 128.517509] [<ffffffff80291d5f>] cache_reap+0x26f/0x290 [ 128.517745] [<ffffffff80249b93>] run_workqueue+0xc3/0x120 [ 128.517926] [<ffffffff80249e11>] worker_thread+0x121/0x160 [ 128.518105] [<ffffffff8024d93a>] kthread+0xda/0x110 [ 128.518286] [<ffffffff8020af2a>] child_rip+0x8/0x12 ffffffff80290c32 /home/tglx/work/kernel/git/linux-2.6.git/mm/slab.c:1012 ffffffff80291bc1 /home/tglx/work/kernel/git/linux-2.6.git/mm/slab.c:1031 ffffffff802908c1 /home/tglx/work/kernel/git/linux-2.6.git/mm/slab.c:1074 ffffffff80291b18 /home/tglx/work/kernel/git/linux-2.6.git/mm/slab.c:3749 Let me know, if you need more info tglx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 20:35 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 20:36 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 20:47 ` Thomas Gleixner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk, kiran On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Let me know, if you need more info What type of NUMA system is this? How many nodes? Is memory exhausted on some so that allocations are redirected? Are cpusets or memory policies used to redirect allocations? Maybe we get confused about local and remote objects due to fallback and contamination of the per node lists with foreign node objects. I have a patch here that make the slab allocations not fall back and insures that cpuset do not interfere but it involves patching the page allocator to not do fallback for slab allocations. Lets see if we can figure this one out first. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 20:36 ` Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 20:47 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 20:48 ` Christoph Lameter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk, kiran On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:36 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > Let me know, if you need more info > > What type of NUMA system is this? How many nodes? Is memory exhausted on > some so that allocations are redirected? Are cpusets or memory policies > used to redirect allocations? Dual dual core opteron board, only one CPU brought up. This happens during bootup, so no special settings involved. tglx [ 0.000000] Bootdata ok (command line is root=/dev/md0 ro maxcpus=1) [ 0.000000] Linux version 2.6.18-rc2 (tglx@cruncher) (gcc version 4.0.3 (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)) #35 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jul 28 22:20:01 CEST 2006 [ 0.000000] BIOS-provided physical RAM map: [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f800 (usable) [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: 000000000009f800 - 00000000000a0000 (reserved) [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: 00000000000e0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved) [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: 0000000000100000 - 00000000fbff0000 (usable) [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: 00000000fbff0000 - 00000000fbfff000 (ACPI data) [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: 00000000fbfff000 - 00000000fc000000 (ACPI NVS) [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: 00000000ff780000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved) [ 0.000000] DMI 2.3 present. [ 0.000000] ACPI: RSDP (v000 ACPIAM ) @ 0x00000000000f6d20 [ 0.000000] ACPI: RSDT (v001 A M I OEMRSDT 0x06000513 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0x00000000fbff0000 [ 0.000000] ACPI: FADT (v001 A M I OEMFACP 0x06000513 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0x00000000fbff0200 [ 0.000000] ACPI: MADT (v001 A M I OEMAPIC 0x06000513 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0x00000000fbff0380 [ 0.000000] ACPI: OEMB (v001 A M I OEMBIOS 0x06000513 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0x00000000fbfff040 [ 0.000000] ACPI: SRAT (v001 A M I OEMSRAT 0x06000513 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0x00000000fbff3b10 [ 0.000000] ACPI: ASF! (v001 AMIASF AMDSTRET 0x00000001 INTL 0x02002026) @ 0x00000000fbff3c20 [ 0.000000] ACPI: DSDT (v001 0AAAA 0AAAA000 0x00000000 INTL 0x02002026) @ 0x0000000000000000 [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> APIC 0 -> Node 0 [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 0 -> APIC 1 -> Node 0 [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 2 -> Node 1 [ 0.000000] SRAT: PXM 1 -> APIC 3 -> Node 1 [ 0.000000] SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 100000-80000000 [ 0.000000] SRAT: Node 1 PXM 1 80000000-fc000000 [ 0.000000] SRAT: Node 1 PXM 1 80000000-100000000 [ 0.000000] SRAT: Node 0 PXM 0 0-80000000 [ 0.000000] NUMA: Using 31 for the hash shift. [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 0 0000000000000000-0000000080000000 [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 1 0000000080000000-00000000fbff0000 [ 0.000000] On node 0 totalpages: 510753 [ 0.000000] DMA zone: 1737 pages, LIFO batch:0 [ 0.000000] DMA32 zone: 509016 pages, LIFO batch:31 [ 0.000000] On node 1 totalpages: 496977 [ 0.000000] DMA32 zone: 496977 pages, LIFO batch:31 [ 0.000000] ACPI: PM-Timer IO Port: 0x1008 [ 0.000000] ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee00000 [ 0.000000] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) [ 0.000000] Processor #0 15:1 APIC version 16 [ 0.000000] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x01] enabled) [ 0.000000] Processor #1 15:1 APIC version 16 [ 0.000000] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x03] lapic_id[0x02] enabled) [ 0.000000] Processor #2 15:1 APIC version 16 [ 0.000000] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x04] lapic_id[0x03] enabled) [ 0.000000] Processor #3 15:1 APIC version 16 [ 0.000000] ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x04] address[0xfec00000] gsi_base[0]) [ 0.000000] IOAPIC[0]: apic_id 4, version 17, address 0xfec00000, GSI 0-23 [ 0.000000] ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x05] address[0xfebff000] gsi_base[24]) [ 0.000000] IOAPIC[1]: apic_id 5, version 17, address 0xfebff000, GSI 24-27 [ 0.000000] ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x06] address[0xfebfe000] gsi_base[28]) [ 0.000000] IOAPIC[2]: apic_id 6, version 17, address 0xfebfe000, GSI 28-31 [ 0.000000] ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 0 global_irq 2 dfl dfl) [ 0.000000] ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 0 global_irq 2 dfl dfl) [ 0.000000] ACPI: IRQ0 used by override. [ 0.000000] ACPI: IRQ2 used by override. [ 0.000000] ACPI: IRQ9 used by override. [ 0.000000] Setting APIC routing to physical flat [ 0.000000] Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration information [ 0.000000] Allocating PCI resources starting at fc400000 (gap: fc000000:3780000) [ 0.000000] SMP: Allowing 4 CPUs, 0 hotplug CPUs [ 0.000000] Built 2 zonelists. Total pages: 1007730 [ 0.000000] Kernel command line: root=/dev/md0 ro maxcpus=1 [ 0.000000] Initializing CPU#0 [ 0.000000] PID hash table entries: 4096 (order: 12, 32768 bytes) [ 0.000000] Disabling vsyscall due to use of PM timer [ 0.000000] time.c: Using 3.579545 MHz WALL PM GTOD PM timer. [ 0.000000] time.c: Detected 1991.696 MHz processor. [ 123.210551] Console: colour VGA+ 80x25 [ 123.215777] Lock dependency validator: Copyright (c) 2006 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo Molnar [ 123.215930] ... MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES: 8 [ 123.216037] ... MAX_LOCK_DEPTH: 30 [ 123.216143] ... MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS: 2048 [ 123.216250] ... CLASSHASH_SIZE: 1024 [ 123.216358] ... MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES: 8192 [ 123.216465] ... MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS: 8192 [ 123.216573] ... CHAINHASH_SIZE: 4096 [ 123.216690] memory used by lock dependency info: 1120 kB [ 123.216802] per task-struct memory footprint: 1680 bytes [ 123.218883] Dentry cache hash table entries: 524288 (order: 10, 4194304 bytes) [ 123.222305] Inode-cache hash table entries: 262144 (order: 9, 2097152 bytes) [ 123.223549] Checking aperture... [ 123.223655] CPU 0: aperture @ 4472000000 size 32 MB [ 123.223779] Aperture too small (32 MB) [ 123.230869] No AGP bridge found [ 123.288294] Memory: 4024308k/4128704k available (2734k kernel code, 104008k reserved, 1848k data, 216k init) [ 123.348627] Calibrating delay using timer specific routine.. 3986.63 BogoMIPS (lpj=1993317) [ 123.348991] Security Framework v1.0.0 initialized [ 123.349103] SELinux: Disabled at boot. [ 123.349277] Mount-cache hash table entries: 256 [ 123.349664] CPU: L1 I Cache: 64K (64 bytes/line), D cache 64K (64 bytes/line) [ 123.349784] CPU: L2 Cache: 1024K (64 bytes/line) [ 123.349893] CPU 0/0 -> Node 0 [ 123.349995] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 [ 123.350100] CPU: Processor Core ID: 0 [ 123.350223] lockdep: not fixing up alternatives. [ 123.350332] ACPI: Core revision 20060707 [ 123.364499] Using local APIC timer interrupts. [ 123.414803] result 12448117 [ 123.414904] Detected 12.448 MHz APIC timer. [ 123.415675] Brought up 1 CPUs [ 123.415814] testing NMI watchdog ... OK. [ 123.426015] migration_cost=0 [ 123.426900] NET: Registered protocol family 16 [ 123.427245] ACPI: bus type pci registered [ 123.427358] PCI: Using configuration type 1 [ 123.447436] ACPI: Interpreter enabled [ 123.447543] ACPI: Using IOAPIC for interrupt routing [ 123.448820] ACPI: PCI Root Bridge [PCI0] (0000:00) [ 123.448938] PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00) [ 123.453171] Boot video device is 0000:03:06.0 [ 123.453692] ACPI: PCI Interrupt Routing Table [\_SB_.PCI0._PRT] [ 123.458468] ACPI: PCI Interrupt Routing Table [\_SB_.PCI0.PCI1._PRT] [ 123.466577] ACPI: PCI Interrupt Routing Table [\_SB_.PCI0.GOLA._PRT] [ 123.467938] ACPI: PCI Interrupt Routing Table [\_SB_.PCI0.GOLB._PRT] [ 123.471656] ACPI: PCI Interrupt Link [LNKA] (IRQs 3 4 *5 6 7 9 10 11 12 14 15) [ 123.472951] ACPI: PCI Interrupt Link [LNKB] (IRQs 3 4 5 6 7 *9 10 11 12 14 15) [ 123.474236] ACPI: PCI Interrupt Link [LNKC] (IRQs 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 *11 12 14 15) [ 123.475546] ACPI: PCI Interrupt Link [LNKD] (IRQs 3 4 5 6 7 9 *10 11 12 14 15) [ 123.476558] Linux Plug and Play Support v0.97 (c) Adam Belay [ 123.476702] pnp: PnP ACPI init [ 123.484169] pnp: PnP ACPI: found 15 devices [ 123.484309] AMD768 RNG detected [ 123.484804] SCSI subsystem initialized [ 123.484980] PCI: Using ACPI for IRQ routing [ 123.485088] PCI: If a device doesn't work, try "pci=routeirq". If it helps, post a report [ 123.485492] PCI-DMA: Disabling IOMMU. [ 123.487167] pnp: 00:0a: ioport range 0x680-0x6ff has been reserved [ 123.487284] pnp: 00:0a: ioport range 0x295-0x296 has been reserved [ 123.487401] pnp: 00:0a: ioport range 0x778-0x77f has been reserved [ 123.487517] pnp: 00:0a: ioport range 0xb78-0xb7f has been reserved [ 123.487639] pnp: 00:0a: ioport range 0xf78-0xf7f has been reserved [ 123.488274] PCI: Bridge: 0000:00:06.0 [ 123.488381] IO window: 9000-bfff [ 123.488489] MEM window: fc900000-feafffff [ 123.488611] PREFETCH window: disabled. [ 123.488720] PCI: Bridge: 0000:00:0a.0 [ 123.488825] IO window: disabled. [ 123.488930] MEM window: fc800000-fc8fffff [ 123.489039] PREFETCH window: ff500000-ff5fffff [ 123.489150] PCI: Bridge: 0000:00:0b.0 [ 123.489254] IO window: disabled. [ 123.489359] MEM window: disabled. [ 123.489463] PREFETCH window: disabled. [ 123.489791] NET: Registered protocol family 2 [ 123.499681] IP route cache hash table entries: 131072 (order: 8, 1048576 bytes) [ 123.500670] TCP established hash table entries: 65536 (order: 9, 3670016 bytes) [ 123.505897] TCP bind hash table entries: 32768 (order: 8, 1835008 bytes) [ 123.508528] TCP: Hash tables configured (established 65536 bind 32768) [ 123.508668] TCP reno registered [ 123.511300] audit: initializing netlink socket (disabled) [ 123.511436] audit(1154118366.247:1): initialized [ 123.511902] VFS: Disk quotas dquot_6.5.1 [ 123.512042] Dquot-cache hash table entries: 512 (order 0, 4096 bytes) [ 123.512397] Initializing Cryptographic API [ 123.512514] io scheduler noop registered [ 123.512698] io scheduler anticipatory registered (default) [ 123.512945] io scheduler deadline registered [ 123.513148] io scheduler cfq registered [ 123.513320] PCI: MSI quirk detected. PCI_BUS_FLAGS_NO_MSI set for subordinate bus. [ 123.513476] PCI: MSI quirk detected. PCI_BUS_FLAGS_NO_MSI set for subordinate bus. [ 123.551821] Real Time Clock Driver v1.12ac [ 123.552016] hpet_acpi_add: no address or irqs in _CRS [ 123.552133] Linux agpgart interface v0.101 (c) Dave Jones [ 123.552246] Serial: 8250/16550 driver $Revision: 1.90 $ 4 ports, IRQ sharing enabled [ 123.552673] serial8250: ttyS0 at I/O 0x3f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A [ 123.552987] serial8250: ttyS1 at I/O 0x2f8 (irq = 3) is a 16550A [ 123.553761] 00:06: ttyS0 at I/O 0x3f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A [ 123.554142] 00:07: ttyS1 at I/O 0x2f8 (irq = 3) is a 16550A [ 123.555637] RAMDISK driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 65536K size 1024 blocksize [ 123.555791] e100: Intel(R) PRO/100 Network Driver, 3.5.10-k2-NAPI [ 123.555906] e100: Copyright(c) 1999-2005 Intel Corporation [ 123.556106] GSI 16 sharing vector 0xA9 and IRQ 16 [ 123.556217] ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:08.0[A] -> GSI 18 (level, low) -> IRQ 169 [ 123.629160] e100: eth0: e100_probe: addr 0xfeafb000, irq 169, MAC addr 00:E0:81:31:35:29 [ 123.629392] tg3.c:v3.63 (July 25, 2006) [ 123.629514] GSI 17 sharing vector 0xB1 and IRQ 17 [ 123.629626] ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:02:09.0[A] -> GSI 24 (level, low) -> IRQ 177 [ 123.636712] eth1: Tigon3 [partno(BCM95704A7) rev 2003 PHY(5704)] (PCIX:100MHz:64-bit) 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet 00:e0:81:31:35:48 [ 123.637233] eth1: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[0] Split[0] WireSpeed[1] TSOcap[1] [ 123.637389] eth1: dma_rwctrl[769f4000] dma_mask[64-bit] [ 123.637544] GSI 18 sharing vector 0xB9 and IRQ 18 [ 123.637655] ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:02:09.1[B] -> GSI 25 (level, low) -> IRQ 185 [ 123.651237] eth2: Tigon3 [partno(BCM95704A7) rev 2003 PHY(5704)] (PCIX:100MHz:64-bit) 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet 00:e0:81:31:35:49 [ 123.651763] eth2: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[0] Split[0] WireSpeed[1] TSOcap[1] [ 123.651919] eth2: dma_rwctrl[769f4000] dma_mask[64-bit] [ 123.652297] Uniform Multi-Platform E-IDE driver Revision: 7.00alpha2 [ 123.652415] ide: Assuming 33MHz system bus speed for PIO modes; override with idebus=xx [ 123.652893] libata version 2.00 loaded. [ 123.653025] sata_sil 0000:03:05.0: version 2.0 [ 123.653044] GSI 19 sharing vector 0xC1 and IRQ 19 [ 123.653155] ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:03:05.0[A] -> GSI 19 (level, low) -> IRQ 193 [ 123.653664] ata1: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC2000001AC80 ctl 0xFFFFC2000001AC8A bmdma 0xFFFFC2000001AC00 irq 193 [ 123.655627] ata2: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC2000001ACC0 ctl 0xFFFFC2000001ACCA bmdma 0xFFFFC2000001AC08 irq 193 [ 123.655833] ata3: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC2000001AE80 ctl 0xFFFFC2000001AE8A bmdma 0xFFFFC2000001AE00 irq 193 [ 123.656037] ata4: SATA max UDMA/100 cmd 0xFFFFC2000001AEC0 ctl 0xFFFFC2000001AECA bmdma 0xFFFFC2000001AE08 irq 193 [ 123.656221] scsi0 : sata_sil [ 124.109450] ata1: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310) [ 124.111264] ata1.00: ATA-7, max UDMA/133, 586114704 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32) [ 124.111422] ata1.00: ata1: dev 0 multi count 16 [ 124.114232] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100 [ 124.114352] scsi1 : sata_sil [ 124.568327] ata2: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310) [ 124.570154] ata2.00: ATA-7, max UDMA/133, 586114704 sectors: LBA48 NCQ (depth 0/32) [ 124.570309] ata2.00: ata2: dev 0 multi count 16 [ 124.573327] ata2.00: configured for UDMA/100 [ 124.573443] scsi2 : sata_sil [ 124.876222] ata3: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310) [ 124.876345] scsi3 : sata_sil [ 125.179142] ata4: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 310) [ 125.179392] Vendor: ATA Model: Maxtor 6V300F0 Rev: VA11 [ 125.181296] Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 [ 125.181783] Vendor: ATA Model: Maxtor 6V300F0 Rev: VA11 [ 125.183685] Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 05 [ 125.184385] SCSI device sda: 586114704 512-byte hdwr sectors (300091 MB) [ 125.184521] sda: Write Protect is off [ 125.184626] sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 [ 125.184655] SCSI device sda: drive cache: write back [ 125.184871] SCSI device sda: 586114704 512-byte hdwr sectors (300091 MB) [ 125.185006] sda: Write Protect is off [ 125.185110] sda: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 [ 125.185151] SCSI device sda: drive cache: write back [ 125.185266] sda: sda1 sda2 sda3 < sda5 sda6 sda7 > [ 125.241119] sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sda [ 125.241332] SCSI device sdb: 586114704 512-byte hdwr sectors (300091 MB) [ 125.241465] sdb: Write Protect is off [ 125.241570] sdb: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 [ 125.241600] SCSI device sdb: drive cache: write back [ 125.241780] SCSI device sdb: 586114704 512-byte hdwr sectors (300091 MB) [ 125.241916] sdb: Write Protect is off [ 125.242021] sdb: Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00 [ 125.242052] SCSI device sdb: drive cache: write back [ 125.242166] sdb: sdb1 sdb2 sdb3 < sdb5 sdb6 sdb7 > [ 125.310203] sd 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi disk sdb [ 125.310410] sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0 [ 125.310590] sd 1:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0 [ 125.310838] PNP: PS/2 Controller [PNP0303:PS2K] at 0x60,0x64 irq 1 [ 125.310954] PNP: PS/2 controller doesn't have AUX irq; using default 12 [ 125.312621] serio: i8042 AUX port at 0x60,0x64 irq 12 [ 125.312855] serio: i8042 KBD port at 0x60,0x64 irq 1 [ 125.313210] mice: PS/2 mouse device common for all mice [ 125.313361] md: linear personality registered for level -1 [ 125.313474] md: raid0 personality registered for level 0 [ 125.313586] md: raid1 personality registered for level 1 [ 125.313698] md: md driver 0.90.3 MAX_MD_DEVS=256, MD_SB_DISKS=27 [ 125.313816] md: bitmap version 4.39 [ 125.314037] TCP bic registered [ 125.314186] NET: Registered protocol family 1 [ 125.314300] NET: Registered protocol family 17 [ 125.314417] NET: Registered protocol family 8 [ 125.314525] NET: Registered protocol family 20 [ 125.315119] ACPI: (supports S0 S1 S5) [ 125.315703] md: Autodetecting RAID arrays. [ 125.444208] md: autorun ... [ 125.444309] md: considering sdb7 ... [ 125.444422] md: adding sdb7 ... [ 125.444526] md: sdb6 has different UUID to sdb7 [ 125.444635] md: sdb5 has different UUID to sdb7 [ 125.444747] md: sdb2 has different UUID to sdb7 [ 125.444860] md: adding sda7 ... [ 125.444964] md: sda6 has different UUID to sdb7 [ 125.445075] md: sda5 has different UUID to sdb7 [ 125.445184] md: sda2 has different UUID to sdb7 [ 125.445396] md: created md3 [ 125.445499] md: bind<sda7> [ 125.445635] md: bind<sdb7> [ 125.445757] md: running: <sdb7><sda7> [ 125.446128] md3: setting max_sectors to 128, segment boundary to 32767 [ 125.446246] raid0: looking at sdb7 [ 125.446350] raid0: comparing sdb7(19518848) with sdb7(19518848) [ 125.446523] raid0: END [ 125.446622] raid0: ==> UNIQUE [ 125.446727] raid0: 1 zones [ 125.446827] raid0: looking at sda7 [ 125.446931] raid0: comparing sda7(19518848) with sdb7(19518848) [ 125.447109] raid0: EQUAL [ 125.447209] raid0: FINAL 1 zones [ 125.447314] raid0: done. [ 125.447413] raid0 : md_size is 39037696 blocks. [ 125.447522] raid0 : conf->hash_spacing is 39037696 blocks. [ 125.447634] raid0 : nb_zone is 1. [ 125.447739] raid0 : Allocating 8 bytes for hash. [ 125.447865] md: considering sdb6 ... [ 125.447975] md: adding sdb6 ... [ 125.448084] md: sdb5 has different UUID to sdb6 [ 125.448193] md: sdb2 has different UUID to sdb6 [ 125.448307] md: adding sda6 ... [ 125.448411] md: sda5 has different UUID to sdb6 [ 125.448519] md: sda2 has different UUID to sdb6 [ 125.448741] md: created md2 [ 125.448843] md: bind<sda6> [ 125.448959] md: bind<sdb6> [ 125.449093] md: running: <sdb6><sda6> [ 125.449429] md2: setting max_sectors to 128, segment boundary to 32767 [ 125.449547] raid0: looking at sdb6 [ 125.449650] raid0: comparing sdb6(97659008) with sdb6(97659008) [ 125.449826] raid0: END [ 125.449925] raid0: ==> UNIQUE [ 125.450027] raid0: 1 zones [ 125.450135] raid0: looking at sda6 [ 125.450239] raid0: comparing sda6(97659008) with sdb6(97659008) [ 125.450411] raid0: EQUAL [ 125.450511] raid0: FINAL 1 zones [ 125.450615] raid0: done. [ 125.450717] raid0 : md_size is 195318016 blocks. [ 125.450826] raid0 : conf->hash_spacing is 195318016 blocks. [ 125.450939] raid0 : nb_zone is 1. [ 125.451041] raid0 : Allocating 8 bytes for hash. [ 125.451160] md: considering sdb5 ... [ 125.451268] md: adding sdb5 ... [ 125.451371] md: sdb2 has different UUID to sdb5 [ 125.451483] md: adding sda5 ... [ 125.451587] md: sda2 has different UUID to sdb5 [ 125.451801] md: created md1 [ 125.451902] md: bind<sda5> [ 125.452019] md: bind<sdb5> [ 125.452146] md: running: <sdb5><sda5> [ 125.452482] md1: setting max_sectors to 128, segment boundary to 32767 [ 125.452600] raid0: looking at sdb5 [ 125.452706] raid0: comparing sdb5(146480512) with sdb5(146480512) [ 125.452880] raid0: END [ 125.452979] raid0: ==> UNIQUE [ 125.453091] raid0: 1 zones [ 125.453192] raid0: looking at sda5 [ 125.453296] raid0: comparing sda5(146480512) with sdb5(146480512) [ 125.453470] raid0: EQUAL [ 125.453570] raid0: FINAL 1 zones [ 125.453673] raid0: done. [ 125.453775] raid0 : md_size is 292961024 blocks. [ 125.453884] raid0 : conf->hash_spacing is 292961024 blocks. [ 125.453997] raid0 : nb_zone is 1. [ 125.454101] raid0 : Allocating 8 bytes for hash. [ 125.454218] md: considering sdb2 ... [ 125.454327] md: adding sdb2 ... [ 125.454435] md: adding sda2 ... [ 125.454538] md: created md0 [ 125.454639] md: bind<sda2> [ 125.454761] md: bind<sdb2> [ 125.454877] md: running: <sdb2><sda2> [ 125.455225] md0: setting max_sectors to 128, segment boundary to 32767 [ 125.455343] raid0: looking at sdb2 [ 125.455447] raid0: comparing sdb2(29294400) with sdb2(29294400) [ 125.455620] raid0: END [ 125.455722] raid0: ==> UNIQUE [ 125.455824] raid0: 1 zones [ 125.455924] raid0: looking at sda2 [ 125.456027] raid0: comparing sda2(29294400) with sdb2(29294400) [ 125.456203] raid0: EQUAL [ 125.456303] raid0: FINAL 1 zones [ 125.456406] raid0: done. [ 125.456506] raid0 : md_size is 58588800 blocks. [ 125.456614] raid0 : conf->hash_spacing is 58588800 blocks. [ 125.456729] raid0 : nb_zone is 1. [ 125.456831] raid0 : Allocating 8 bytes for hash. [ 125.456947] md: ... autorun DONE. [ 125.500795] kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds [ 125.500944] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. [ 125.501124] VFS: Mounted root (ext3 filesystem) readonly. [ 125.501284] Freeing unused kernel memory: 216k freed [ 125.530611] input: AT Translated Set 2 keyboard as /class/input/input0 [ 128.510384] [ 128.510386] ============================================= [ 128.512303] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] [ 128.512415] --------------------------------------------- [ 128.512527] events/0/5 is trying to acquire lock: [ 128.512636] (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff802908c1>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 [ 128.513024] [ 128.513025] but task is already holding lock: [ 128.513225] (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80291bc1>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290 [ 128.513608] [ 128.513609] other info that might help us debug this: [ 128.513813] 3 locks held by events/0/5: [ 128.513917] #0: (cache_chain_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80291b18>] cache_reap+0x28/0x290 [ 128.514362] #1: (&nc->lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80291bc1>] cache_reap+0xd1/0x290 [ 128.514803] #2: (&parent->list_lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff80290c32>] __drain_alien_cache+0x42/0x90 [ 128.515253] [ 128.515253] stack backtrace: [ 128.515448] [ 128.515449] Call Trace: [ 128.515740] [<ffffffff8020b75e>] show_trace+0xae/0x280 [ 128.515864] [<ffffffff8020bb75>] dump_stack+0x15/0x20 [ 128.515987] [<ffffffff8025447c>] __lock_acquire+0x8cc/0xcb0 [ 128.516178] [<ffffffff80254b82>] lock_acquire+0x52/0x70 [ 128.516369] [<ffffffff804a8374>] _spin_lock+0x34/0x50 [ 128.516562] [<ffffffff802908c1>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 [ 128.516799] [<ffffffff80290a48>] slab_destroy+0xb8/0xf0 [ 128.517034] [<ffffffff80290b88>] free_block+0x108/0x170 [ 128.517270] [<ffffffff80290c58>] __drain_alien_cache+0x68/0x90 [ 128.517509] [<ffffffff80291d5f>] cache_reap+0x26f/0x290 [ 128.517745] [<ffffffff80249b93>] run_workqueue+0xc3/0x120 [ 128.517926] [<ffffffff80249e11>] worker_thread+0x121/0x160 [ 128.518105] [<ffffffff8024d93a>] kthread+0xda/0x110 [ 128.518286] [<ffffffff8020af2a>] child_rip+0x8/0x12 [ 129.180199] Adding 39037688k swap on /dev/md3. Priority:-1 extents:1 across:39037688k [ 129.200450] PM: Writing back config space on device 0000:02:09.0 at offset b (was 164814e4, writing 164414e4) [ 129.200657] PM: Writing back config space on device 0000:02:09.0 at offset 3 (was 804000, writing 804010) [ 129.200821] PM: Writing back config space on device 0000:02:09.0 at offset 2 (was 2000000, writing 2000003) [ 129.200986] PM: Writing back config space on device 0000:02:09.0 at offset 1 (was 2b00000, writing 2b00106) [ 129.655486] EXT3 FS on md0, internal journal [ 132.485370] tg3: eth1: Link is up at 1000 Mbps, full duplex. [ 132.485519] tg3: eth1: Flow control is on for TX and on for RX. [ 132.697481] kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds [ 132.697734] EXT3 FS on sda1, internal journal [ 132.697904] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. [ 132.712956] kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds [ 132.713346] EXT3 FS on md1, internal journal [ 132.713516] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 20:47 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 20:48 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 21:12 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk, kiran On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:36 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Let me know, if you need more info > > > > What type of NUMA system is this? How many nodes? Is memory exhausted on > > some so that allocations are redirected? Are cpusets or memory policies > > used to redirect allocations? > > Dual dual core opteron board, only one CPU brought up. This happens > during bootup, so no special settings involved. One cpu with two nodes? > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 0 0000000000000000-0000000080000000 > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 1 0000000080000000-00000000fbff0000 Right two nodes. We may have a special case here of one cpu having to manage remote memory. Alien cache freeing is likely screwed up in that case because we cannot have the idea of one processor local to the node doing the alien cache draining . We have to take the remote lock (no cpu dedicate to that node). Could you enable another processor and dedicate the other to the second node? Another idea would be to simply disable alien caches for that configuration. I heard that Alok and Kiran have a patch that would do this. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 20:48 ` Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 21:12 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2006-07-28 21:20 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 21:26 ` Christoph Lameter 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai @ 2006-07-28 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 01:48:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:36 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > Let me know, if you need more info > > > > > > What type of NUMA system is this? How many nodes? Is memory exhausted on > > > some so that allocations are redirected? Are cpusets or memory policies > > > used to redirect allocations? > > > > Dual dual core opteron board, only one CPU brought up. This happens > > during bootup, so no special settings involved. > > One cpu with two nodes? > > > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 0 0000000000000000-0000000080000000 > > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 1 0000000080000000-00000000fbff0000 > > Right two nodes. We may have a special case here of one cpu having to > manage remote memory. Alien cache freeing is likely screwed up in that > case because we cannot have the idea of one processor local to the node > doing the alien cache draining . We have to take the remote lock (no cpu > dedicate to that node). Why should there be any problem taking the remote l3 lock? If the remote node does not have cpu that does not mean we cannot take a lock from the local node!!! I think current git does not teach lockdep to ignore recursion for array_cache->lock when the array_cache->lock are from different cases. As Arjan pointed out, I can see that l3->list_lock is special cased, but I cannot find where array_cache->lock is taken care of. Again, if this is indeed a problem (recursion) machine should not boot even, when compiled without lockdep, tglx, can you please verify this? Thanks, Kiran ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 21:12 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai @ 2006-07-28 21:20 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-08-02 19:10 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2006-07-28 21:26 ` Christoph Lameter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 21:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Cc: Christoph Lameter, Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 14:12 -0700, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 01:48:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:36 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > > > Let me know, if you need more info > > > > > > > > What type of NUMA system is this? How many nodes? Is memory exhausted on > > > > some so that allocations are redirected? Are cpusets or memory policies > > > > used to redirect allocations? > > > > > > Dual dual core opteron board, only one CPU brought up. This happens > > > during bootup, so no special settings involved. > > > > One cpu with two nodes? > > > > > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 0 0000000000000000-0000000080000000 > > > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 1 0000000080000000-00000000fbff0000 > > > > Right two nodes. We may have a special case here of one cpu having to > > manage remote memory. Alien cache freeing is likely screwed up in that > > case because we cannot have the idea of one processor local to the node > > doing the alien cache draining . We have to take the remote lock (no cpu > > dedicate to that node). > > Why should there be any problem taking the remote l3 lock? If the remote > node does not have cpu that does not mean we cannot take a lock from the > local node!!! > > I think current git does not teach lockdep to ignore recursion for > array_cache->lock when the array_cache->lock are from different cases. As > Arjan pointed out, I can see that l3->list_lock is special cased, but I > cannot find where array_cache->lock is taken care of. > > Again, if this is indeed a problem (recursion) machine should not boot even, > when compiled without lockdep, tglx, can you please verify this? It boots witjh lockdep disabled, so lockdep needs some education, which is not that easy in this case. tglx ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 21:20 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-08-02 19:10 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2006-08-07 7:27 ` Thomas Gleixner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai @ 2006-08-02 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Gleixner, Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Lameter, Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 11:20:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 14:12 -0700, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 01:48:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > One cpu with two nodes? > > > > > > > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 0 0000000000000000-0000000080000000 > > > > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 1 0000000080000000-00000000fbff0000 > > > > > > Right two nodes. We may have a special case here of one cpu having to > > > manage remote memory. Alien cache freeing is likely screwed up in that > > > case because we cannot have the idea of one processor local to the node > > > doing the alien cache draining . We have to take the remote lock (no cpu > > > dedicate to that node). > > > > Why should there be any problem taking the remote l3 lock? If the remote > > node does not have cpu that does not mean we cannot take a lock from the > > local node!!! > > > > I think current git does not teach lockdep to ignore recursion for > > array_cache->lock when the array_cache->lock are from different cases. As > > Arjan pointed out, I can see that l3->list_lock is special cased, but I > > cannot find where array_cache->lock is taken care of. > > > > Again, if this is indeed a problem (recursion) machine should not boot even, > > when compiled without lockdep, tglx, can you please verify this? > > It boots witjh lockdep disabled, so lockdep needs some education, which > is not that easy in this case. > Here's an attempt to educate lockdep about alien cache lock. tglx, can you confirm if this fixes the false positive? This is just an extension of the l3 lock lesson :). Note: With this approach, lockdep forgets its education for alien caches if all cpus of a node go down and come back up. But taking care of that scenario will make things uglier....not sure if it is worth it. Thanks, Kiran Place the alien array cache locks of on slab malloc slab caches on a seperate lockdep class. This avoids false positives from lockdep Signed-off-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> Signed-off-by: Shai Fultheim <shai@scalex86.org> Index: linux-2.6.18-rc3-x460/mm/slab.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.18-rc3-x460.orig/mm/slab.c 2006-07-30 21:27:28.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6.18-rc3-x460/mm/slab.c 2006-08-01 18:01:51.000000000 -0700 @@ -682,23 +682,43 @@ * The locking for this is tricky in that it nests within the locks * of all other slabs in a few places; to deal with this special * locking we put on-slab caches into a separate lock-class. + * + * We set lock class for alien array caches which are up during init. + * The lock annotation will be lost if all cpus of a node goes down and + * then comes back up during hotplug */ -static struct lock_class_key on_slab_key; +static struct lock_class_key on_slab_l3_key; +static struct lock_class_key on_slab_alc_key; + +static inline void init_lock_keys(void) -static inline void init_lock_keys(struct cache_sizes *s) { int q; + struct cache_sizes *s = malloc_sizes; - for (q = 0; q < MAX_NUMNODES; q++) { - if (!s->cs_cachep->nodelists[q] || OFF_SLAB(s->cs_cachep)) - continue; - lockdep_set_class(&s->cs_cachep->nodelists[q]->list_lock, - &on_slab_key); + while (s->cs_size != ULONG_MAX) { + for_each_node(q) { + struct array_cache **alc; + int r; + struct kmem_list3 *l3 = s->cs_cachep->nodelists[q]; + if (!l3 || OFF_SLAB(s->cs_cachep)) + continue; + lockdep_set_class(&l3->list_lock, &on_slab_l3_key); + alc = l3->alien; + if (!alc) + continue; + for_each_node(r) { + if (alc[r]) + lockdep_set_class(&alc[r]->lock, + &on_slab_alc_key); + } + } + s++; } } #else -static inline void init_lock_keys(struct cache_sizes *s) +static inline void init_lock_keys() { } #endif @@ -1422,7 +1442,6 @@ ARCH_KMALLOC_FLAGS|SLAB_PANIC, NULL, NULL); } - init_lock_keys(sizes); sizes->cs_dmacachep = kmem_cache_create(names->name_dma, sizes->cs_size, @@ -1495,6 +1514,10 @@ mutex_unlock(&cache_chain_mutex); } + /* Annotate slab for lockdep -- annotate the malloc caches */ + init_lock_keys(); + + /* Done! */ g_cpucache_up = FULL; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-08-02 19:10 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai @ 2006-08-07 7:27 ` Thomas Gleixner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-08-07 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Cc: Andrew Morton, Christoph Lameter, Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 12:10 -0700, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > Here's an attempt to educate lockdep about alien cache lock. tglx, can you > confirm if this fixes the false positive? This is just an extension of the > l3 lock lesson :). > > Note: With this approach, lockdep forgets its education for alien caches > if all cpus of a node go down and come back up. But taking care of > that scenario will make things uglier....not sure if it is worth it. > > Thanks, > Kiran Sorry, I did not come around to test it earlier. With this patch applied the lockdep message is gone. tglx > Place the alien array cache locks of on slab malloc slab caches on a seperate > lockdep class. This avoids false positives from lockdep > > Signed-off-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> > Signed-off-by: Shai Fultheim <shai@scalex86.org> > > Index: linux-2.6.18-rc3-x460/mm/slab.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.18-rc3-x460.orig/mm/slab.c 2006-07-30 21:27:28.000000000 -0700 > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc3-x460/mm/slab.c 2006-08-01 18:01:51.000000000 -0700 > @@ -682,23 +682,43 @@ > * The locking for this is tricky in that it nests within the locks > * of all other slabs in a few places; to deal with this special > * locking we put on-slab caches into a separate lock-class. > + * > + * We set lock class for alien array caches which are up during init. > + * The lock annotation will be lost if all cpus of a node goes down and > + * then comes back up during hotplug > */ > -static struct lock_class_key on_slab_key; > +static struct lock_class_key on_slab_l3_key; > +static struct lock_class_key on_slab_alc_key; > + > +static inline void init_lock_keys(void) > > -static inline void init_lock_keys(struct cache_sizes *s) > { > int q; > + struct cache_sizes *s = malloc_sizes; > > - for (q = 0; q < MAX_NUMNODES; q++) { > - if (!s->cs_cachep->nodelists[q] || OFF_SLAB(s->cs_cachep)) > - continue; > - lockdep_set_class(&s->cs_cachep->nodelists[q]->list_lock, > - &on_slab_key); > + while (s->cs_size != ULONG_MAX) { > + for_each_node(q) { > + struct array_cache **alc; > + int r; > + struct kmem_list3 *l3 = s->cs_cachep->nodelists[q]; > + if (!l3 || OFF_SLAB(s->cs_cachep)) > + continue; > + lockdep_set_class(&l3->list_lock, &on_slab_l3_key); > + alc = l3->alien; > + if (!alc) > + continue; > + for_each_node(r) { > + if (alc[r]) > + lockdep_set_class(&alc[r]->lock, > + &on_slab_alc_key); > + } > + } > + s++; > } > } > > #else > -static inline void init_lock_keys(struct cache_sizes *s) > +static inline void init_lock_keys() > { > } > #endif > @@ -1422,7 +1442,6 @@ > ARCH_KMALLOC_FLAGS|SLAB_PANIC, > NULL, NULL); > } > - init_lock_keys(sizes); > > sizes->cs_dmacachep = kmem_cache_create(names->name_dma, > sizes->cs_size, > @@ -1495,6 +1514,10 @@ > mutex_unlock(&cache_chain_mutex); > } > > + /* Annotate slab for lockdep -- annotate the malloc caches */ > + init_lock_keys(); > + > + > /* Done! */ > g_cpucache_up = FULL; > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 21:12 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2006-07-28 21:20 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 21:26 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 21:34 ` Alok Kataria 2006-07-29 4:26 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 1 sibling, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > Why should there be any problem taking the remote l3 lock? If the remote > node does not have cpu that does not mean we cannot take a lock from the > local node!!! > > I think current git does not teach lockdep to ignore recursion for > array_cache->lock when the array_cache->lock are from different cases. As > Arjan pointed out, I can see that l3->list_lock is special cased, but I > cannot find where array_cache->lock is taken care of. Ok. > Again, if this is indeed a problem (recursion) machine should not boot even, > when compiled without lockdep, tglx, can you please verify this? We seem to be fine on that level. I would still like to see someone thinking through this a bit more. Allocations via page_alloc_node() may be redirected by cpusets and because nodes are low on memory. This means that we get memory on a different node than we requested. How does that impact the alien lock situation? In particular what happens if the off slab allocation for the management object was on a different node from the slab data? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 21:26 ` Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 21:34 ` Alok Kataria 2006-07-29 4:26 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Alok Kataria @ 2006-07-28 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Ravikiran G Thirumalai, Thomas Gleixner, Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 14:26 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > > Why should there be any problem taking the remote l3 lock? If the remote > > node does not have cpu that does not mean we cannot take a lock from the > > local node!!! > > > > I think current git does not teach lockdep to ignore recursion for > > array_cache->lock when the array_cache->lock are from different cases. As > > Arjan pointed out, I can see that l3->list_lock is special cased, but I > > cannot find where array_cache->lock is taken care of. > > Ok. > > > Again, if this is indeed a problem (recursion) machine should not boot even, > > when compiled without lockdep, tglx, can you please verify this? > > We seem to be fine on that level. > > I would still like to see someone thinking through this a bit more. > > Allocations via page_alloc_node() may be redirected by cpusets and > because nodes are low on memory. This means that we get memory on a > different node than we requested. How does that impact the alien lock > situation? Good point, i saw this thing occur with 2.6.17 tree (objects coming from different node than requested), but in no ways does that affect the correctness of the system. But i saw a marginal performance drop with this case. As far as figuring out if the object is from a remote node we check the node id from the slab, which was intialised while allocating the slab. So the slab layer now just knows that objects in this slab are from the slab->nodeid node, irrespective of the node from where the actual page came. Thus nothing goes wrong, but we may see a little performance drop. > In particular what happens if the off slab allocation for > the management object was on a different node from the slab data? Same thing performance drop. Thanks & Regards, Alok ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 21:26 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 21:34 ` Alok Kataria @ 2006-07-29 4:26 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai @ 2006-07-29 4:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Lameter, Andrew Morton Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Pekka Enberg, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven, alokk On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:26:16PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > > Why should there be any problem taking the remote l3 lock? If the remote > > node does not have cpu that does not mean we cannot take a lock from the > > local node!!! > > > > I think current git does not teach lockdep to ignore recursion for > > array_cache->lock when the array_cache->lock are from different cases. As > > Arjan pointed out, I can see that l3->list_lock is special cased, but I > > cannot find where array_cache->lock is taken care of. > > Ok. > > > Again, if this is indeed a problem (recursion) machine should not boot even, > > when compiled without lockdep, tglx, can you please verify this? > > We seem to be fine on that level. > Since false positives due to off slab slab management seem to occur often of late, how about adding some comments to slab.c? Thanks, Kiran --- Adds some comments to slab.c. Also, checks if we get a valid slabp_cache for off slab slab-descriptors. We should always get this. If we don't, then in that case we, will have to disable off-slab descriptors for this cache and do the calculations again. This is a rare case, so add a BUG_ON, for now, just in case. Signed-off-by: Alok N Kataria <alok.kataria@calsoftinc.com> Signed-off-by: Ravikiran Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> Signed-off-by: Shai Fultheim <shai@scalex86.org> Index: linux-2.6.18-rc2.git/mm/slab.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.18-rc2.git.orig/mm/slab.c 2006-07-28 17:43:04.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6.18-rc2.git/mm/slab.c 2006-07-28 18:13:31.000000000 -0700 @@ -2200,8 +2200,17 @@ kmem_cache_create (const char *name, siz cachep->gfpflags |= GFP_DMA; cachep->buffer_size = size; - if (flags & CFLGS_OFF_SLAB) + if (flags & CFLGS_OFF_SLAB) { cachep->slabp_cache = kmem_find_general_cachep(slab_size, 0u); + /* + * This is a possibility for one of the malloc_sizes caches. + * But since we go off slab only for object size greater than + * PAGE_SIZE/8, and malloc_sizes gets created in ascending order, + * this should not happen at all. + * But leave a BUG_ON for some lucky dude. + */ + BUG_ON(!cachep->slabp_cache); + } cachep->ctor = ctor; cachep->dtor = dtor; cachep->name = name; @@ -2435,7 +2444,17 @@ int kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cache } EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_destroy); -/* Get the memory for a slab management obj. */ +/* + * Get the memory for a slab management obj. + * For a slab cache when the slab descriptor is off-slab, slab descriptors + * always come from malloc_sizes caches. The slab descriptor cannot + * come from the same cache which is getting created because, + * when we are searching for an appropriate cache for these + * descriptors in kmem_cache_create, we search through the malloc_sizes array. + * If we are creating a malloc_sizes cache here it would not be visible to + * kmem_find_general_cachep till the initialization is complete. + * Hence we cannot have slabp_cache same as the original cache. + */ static struct slab *alloc_slabmgmt(struct kmem_cache *cachep, void *objp, int colour_off, gfp_t local_flags, int nodeid) @@ -3119,6 +3138,12 @@ static void free_block(struct kmem_cache if (slabp->inuse == 0) { if (l3->free_objects > l3->free_limit) { l3->free_objects -= cachep->num; + /* No need to drop any previously held + * lock here, even if we have a off-slab slab + * descriptor it is guaranteed to come from + * a different cache, refer to comments before + * alloc_slabmgmt. + */ slab_destroy(cachep, slabp); } else { list_add(&slabp->list, &l3->slabs_free); ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 5:22 ` Pekka Enberg 2006-07-28 6:14 ` Thomas Gleixner @ 2006-07-28 14:53 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 17:11 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pekka Enberg; +Cc: alokk, tglx, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > [ 57.976447] [<ffffffff802542fc>] __lock_acquire+0x8cc/0xcb0 > > [ 57.976562] [<ffffffff80254a02>] lock_acquire+0x52/0x70 > > [ 57.976675] [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 > > [ 57.976790] [<ffffffff804a6b74>] _spin_lock+0x34/0x50 > > [ 57.976903] [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 > > [ 57.977018] [<ffffffff8028f388>] slab_destroy+0xb8/0xf0 Huh? _spin_lock calls kmem_cache_free? > cache_reap > reap_alien (grabs l3->alien[node]->lock) > __drain_alien_cache > free_block > slab_destroy (slab management off slab) > kmem_cache_free > __cache_free > cache_free_alien (recursive attempt on l3->alien[node] lock) > > Christoph? This should not happen. __drain_alien_cache frees node local elements thus cache_free_alien should not be called. However, if the slab management was allocated on a different node from the slab data then we may have an issue. However, both slab managemnt and the slab data are allocated on the same node (with alloc_pages_node() and kmalloc_node). If something went wrong with kmalloc_node or alloc_pages_node (fallback?) then we may have an issue. Guess we need to look into this some more. Alok, have you thought about this issue before? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 14:53 ` Christoph Lameter @ 2006-07-28 17:11 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2006-07-28 17:14 ` Arjan van de Ven 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai @ 2006-07-28 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Pekka Enberg, alokk, tglx, LKML, Ingo Molnar, Arjan van de Ven On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 07:53:56AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > > [ 57.976447] [<ffffffff802542fc>] __lock_acquire+0x8cc/0xcb0 > > > [ 57.976562] [<ffffffff80254a02>] lock_acquire+0x52/0x70 > > > [ 57.976675] [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 > > > [ 57.976790] [<ffffffff804a6b74>] _spin_lock+0x34/0x50 > > > [ 57.976903] [<ffffffff8028f201>] kmem_cache_free+0x141/0x210 > > > [ 57.977018] [<ffffffff8028f388>] slab_destroy+0xb8/0xf0 > > Huh? _spin_lock calls kmem_cache_free? > > > cache_reap > > reap_alien (grabs l3->alien[node]->lock) > > __drain_alien_cache > > free_block > > slab_destroy (slab management off slab) > > kmem_cache_free > > __cache_free > > cache_free_alien (recursive attempt on l3->alien[node] lock) > > > > Christoph? > > This should not happen. __drain_alien_cache frees node local elements > thus cache_free_alien should not be called. However, if the slab > management was allocated on a different node from the slab data then we > may have an issue. However, both slab managemnt and the slab data are > allocated on the same node (with alloc_pages_node() and kmalloc_node). cache_free_alien could get called, but there is no recursion here: 1. reap_alien tries dropping remote objects freed by local node (A) to the remote node (B) shared array cache (choosing a remote node as indicated by the node rotor), to do this, it takes the local alien cache lock (A), and calls __drain_alien_cache. The remote object comes from a slab cache X say. 2. __drain_alien_cache. takes the remote node l3 lock (B), transfers as many objects as shared array cache of the remote node can hold, and calls free_block to free remaining objects that could not be dropped in into the shared array cache of remote node (B). Now free_block is being called from (A) to free objects on (B). 3. free_block calls slab_destroy for the slab belonging to B. calls kmem_cache_free for the slab management, which calls __cache_free, and hence cache_free_alien(). Now since this is being called from A for a local object of B, the check in cache_free_alien fails, and cache_free_alien *does* get executed. Since slab management of a slab from B, local to B is freed from A, A tries to write to the local alien cache corresponding to B, which comes from a slab cache Y. There is a recursion if X and Y are the same caches. But that is not a possibility at all, as the off slab management for a slab cache cannot come from the same slab cache. So this looks like a false positive from lockdep. tglx, does the machine boot without lockdep? If yes, then this is a false positive IMO. Thanks, Kiran ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free 2006-07-28 17:11 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai @ 2006-07-28 17:14 ` Arjan van de Ven 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Arjan van de Ven @ 2006-07-28 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Cc: Christoph Lameter, Pekka Enberg, alokk, tglx, LKML, Ingo Molnar > cache_free_alien could get called, but there is no recursion here: > > 1. reap_alien tries dropping remote objects freed by local node (A) to the > remote node (B) shared array cache (choosing a remote node as indicated by the > node rotor), to do this, it takes the local alien cache lock (A), and calls > __drain_alien_cache. The remote object comes from a slab cache X say. > > 2. __drain_alien_cache. takes the remote node l3 lock (B), transfers as many > objects as shared array cache of the remote node can hold, and calls > free_block to free remaining objects that could not be dropped in into the > shared array cache of remote node (B). Now free_block is being called from > (A) to free objects on (B). > > 3. free_block calls slab_destroy for the slab belonging to B. calls > kmem_cache_free for the slab management, which calls __cache_free, and > hence cache_free_alien(). Now since this is being called from A for a local > object of B, the check in cache_free_alien fails, and cache_free_alien > *does* get executed. Since slab management of a slab from B, local to B is > freed from A, A tries to write to the local alien cache corresponding to B, > which comes from a slab cache Y. There is a recursion if X and Y are the > same caches. But that is not a possibility at all, as the off slab management > for a slab cache cannot come from the same slab cache. So this looks like a > false positive from lockdep. actually lockdep doesn't see normal slabs and the slabs where off-slab management comes from as the same lock, so it really shouldn't complain about this specific case. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-08-07 7:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-07-27 23:56 [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 5:22 ` Pekka Enberg 2006-07-28 6:14 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 15:35 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 20:11 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 20:18 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 20:27 ` Arjan van de Ven 2006-07-28 20:27 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 20:35 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 20:36 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 20:47 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 20:48 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 21:12 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2006-07-28 21:20 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-08-02 19:10 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2006-08-07 7:27 ` Thomas Gleixner 2006-07-28 21:26 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 21:34 ` Alok Kataria 2006-07-29 4:26 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2006-07-28 14:53 ` Christoph Lameter 2006-07-28 17:11 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai 2006-07-28 17:14 ` Arjan van de Ven
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox