From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@sf-tec.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Hard lockups using 3.10.0
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:52:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130711105207.GE25631@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130711100721.GA28131@pd.tnic>
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:07:21PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:38:37AM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm running 3.10.0 (from openSUSE packages) on an "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600
> > CPU @ 3.40GHz". I got a hard lockup on one of my CPUs twice, once with
> > backtrace (see attached image). Graphics is the builtin Intel, used with X 7.6
> > and KDE 4.10beta2 (basically current openSUSE 12.3+KDE).
> >
> > I'm not aware that I had done anything special, just "normal" desktop and
> > development usage, but no heavy compile work at the moment the lockups
> > happened.
>
> Hmm, I can see commit_creds() doing some rcu pointers assignment and rcu
> calling into the scheduler which screams about a cpu runqueue of the
> task we're about to reschedule not being locked. Let's add some more
> people who should know better.
Ok, for the other people too lazy to bother finding the picture:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137353587012001&q=p3
So we bug at:
kernel/sched/core.c:519 assert_raw_spin_locked(&task_rq(p)->lock);
and get there through:
resched_task()
check_preempt_wakeup()
check_preempt_curr()
try_to_wake_up()
autoremove_wake_function()
__call_rcu_nocb_enqueue()
__call_rcu()
commit_creds()
____call_usermodehelper()
ret_from_fork()
That don't make much sense though. Since:
try_to_wake_up()
ttwu_queue()
raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
ttwu_do_activate()
ttwu_do_wakeup()
check_preempt_curr()
check_preempt_wakeup()
resched_task(rq->curr)
assert_raw_spin_locked(task_rq(p)->lock)
It would somehow mean that 'task_rq(rq->curr) != rq', that's completely
bonkers, we do after all have rq->lock locked.
I must also say that I've _never_ seen this bug before.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-11 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-11 9:38 Hard lockups using 3.10.0 Rolf Eike Beer
2013-07-11 10:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-07-11 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-11 10:52 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2013-07-11 17:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-11 19:02 ` Rolf Eike Beer
2013-08-11 6:09 ` Rolf Eike Beer
2013-08-11 8:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-08-11 11:10 ` Rolf Eike Beer
2013-08-13 10:38 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-08-13 11:57 ` Rolf Eike Beer
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=20130711105207.GE25631@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=eike-kernel@sf-tec.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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