From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
cl@gentwo.org
Subject: Re: 3.2-rc1: INFO: possible recursive locking detected
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:47:17 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111110234717.GI2354@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111109090556.GA5949@zhy>
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 05:05:57PM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just get below waring when doing:
> for i in `seq 1 10`; do ./perf bench -f simple sched messaging -g 40; done
>
> And kernel config is attached.
This appears to me to be the same false positive from the slab allocator
that has been seen before. Christoph, any progress on this?
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks,
> Yong
>
> ---
> [ 350.148020] =============================================
> [ 350.148020] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 350.148020] 3.2.0-rc1-10791-g76a4b59-dirty #2
> [ 350.148020] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 350.148020] perf/9439 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 350.148020] (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff8113847f>] get_partial_node+0x5f/0x360
> [ 350.148020]
> [ 350.148020] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 350.148020] (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff811380c9>] unfreeze_partials+0x199/0x3c0
> [ 350.148020]
> [ 350.148020] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 350.148020] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 350.148020]
> [ 350.148020] CPU0
> [ 350.148020] ----
> [ 350.148020] lock(&(&n->list_lock)->rlock);
> [ 350.148020] lock(&(&n->list_lock)->rlock);
> [ 350.148020]
> [ 350.148020] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 350.148020]
> [ 350.148020] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> [ 350.148020]
> [ 350.148020] 2 locks held by perf/9439:
> [ 350.148020] #0: (tasklist_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff810552ee>] release_task+0x9e/0x500
> [ 350.148020] #1: (&(&n->list_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff811380c9>] unfreeze_partials+0x199/0x3c0
> [ 350.148020]
> [ 350.148020] stack backtrace:
> [ 350.148020] Pid: 9439, comm: perf Not tainted 3.2.0-rc1-10791-g76a4b59-dirty #2
> [ 350.148020] Call Trace:
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff815e7278>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x38/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff810932ff>] validate_chain+0xddf/0x1250
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8100a9b9>] ? native_sched_clock+0x29/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81080c2f>] ? local_clock+0x4f/0x60
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8108e939>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x29/0x130
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81093b3f>] __lock_acquire+0x3cf/0xc00
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8100a9b9>] ? native_sched_clock+0x29/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81094a3d>] lock_acquire+0x9d/0x1d0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8113847f>] ? get_partial_node+0x5f/0x360
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8100a9b9>] ? native_sched_clock+0x29/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81080c2f>] ? local_clock+0x4f/0x60
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff815e6570>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8113847f>] ? get_partial_node+0x5f/0x360
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8113847f>] get_partial_node+0x5f/0x360
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8100a9b9>] ? native_sched_clock+0x29/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8100a9b9>] ? native_sched_clock+0x29/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8113a836>] ? T.1029+0x36/0x3f0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff813741ba>] ? __debug_object_init+0x3ba/0x3d0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8113a9b7>] T.1029+0x1b7/0x3f0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff813741ba>] ? __debug_object_init+0x3ba/0x3d0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8100a9b9>] ? native_sched_clock+0x29/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff813741ba>] ? __debug_object_init+0x3ba/0x3d0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8113ace6>] kmem_cache_alloc+0xf6/0x200
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff813741ba>] __debug_object_init+0x3ba/0x3d0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff815e7278>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x38/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8137421f>] debug_object_init+0x1f/0x30
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81075f94>] rcuhead_fixup_activate+0x34/0xe0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff813732a3>] debug_object_fixup+0x13/0x20
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8137394c>] debug_object_activate+0xbc/0x160
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81137c20>] ? deactivate_slab+0x7c0/0x7c0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff810c8f52>] __call_rcu+0x42/0x1d0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff810c90f5>] call_rcu+0x15/0x20
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81137454>] discard_slab+0x44/0x50
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8113822f>] unfreeze_partials+0x2ff/0x3c0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8100a9b9>] ? native_sched_clock+0x29/0x80
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff811383d9>] ? put_cpu_partial+0x99/0xe0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff811383e1>] put_cpu_partial+0xa1/0xe0
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81139d22>] __slab_free+0x102/0x470
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8104ef17>] ? __cleanup_sighand+0x27/0x30
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8113a7f0>] kmem_cache_free+0x220/0x230
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8104ef17>] __cleanup_sighand+0x27/0x30
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8105548b>] release_task+0x23b/0x500
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff8105526d>] ? release_task+0x1d/0x500
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81056043>] wait_consider_task+0x8f3/0xc40
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff810564b1>] do_wait+0x121/0x340
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff81056773>] sys_wait4+0xa3/0x100
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff810544e0>] ? wait_noreap_copyout+0x150/0x150
> [ 350.148020] [<ffffffff815e7dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-10 23:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-09 9:05 3.2-rc1: INFO: possible recursive locking detected Yong Zhang
2011-11-09 9:09 ` Yong Zhang
2011-11-10 23:35 ` INFO: possible recursive locking detected: get_partial_node() on 3.2-rc1 Julie Sullivan
2011-11-11 3:04 ` Shaohua Li
2011-11-11 4:42 ` Yong Zhang
2011-11-11 14:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-11-11 15:02 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-11-11 19:09 ` Julie Sullivan
2011-11-11 19:22 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-11-14 5:34 ` Shaohua Li
2011-11-15 7:22 ` Yong Zhang
2011-11-15 18:49 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-11-15 16:02 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-11-10 23:47 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2011-11-11 14:43 ` 3.2-rc1: INFO: possible recursive locking detected Christoph Lameter
2011-11-11 15:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-11-11 13:41 ` INFO: possible recursive locking detected: do_lookup() on 3.2-rc1 Shawn Guo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111110234717.GI2354@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).