From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARN_ON() in lock_accesses()
Date: Sun, 3 May 2015 00:53:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150503075316.GA2663@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150502181343.GA26884@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 11:13:43AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 03:49:59AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I got the following while testing Tiny RCU, so this is a UP system with
> > PREEMPT=n, but with my RCU stack:
> >
> > [ 1774.636012] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at /home/paulmck/public_git/linux-rcu/kernel/locking/lockdep.c:973 __bfs+0x207/0x280()
> > [ 1774.636012] Modules linked in:
> > [ 1774.636012] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 4.1.0-rc1+ #1
> > [ 1774.636012] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> > [ 1774.636012] ffffffff81c72ee0 ffff88001e8c7818 ffffffff818eab91 ffff88001e8c7858
> > [ 1774.636012] ffffffff8104916f ffff88001e8c7898 ffffffff838c60c0 0000000000000000
> > [ 1774.636012] ffffffff81079f20 ffff88001e8c78e8 0000000000000000 ffff88001e8c7868
> > [ 1774.636012] Call Trace:
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff818eab91>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8104916f>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81079f20>] ? noop_count+0x10/0x10
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81049255>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107a737>] __bfs+0x207/0x280
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107c002>] check_usage_backwards+0x72/0x130
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107d9ac>] ? __lock_acquire+0x93c/0x1d50
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107bf90>] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x1d0/0x1d0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107ca72>] mark_lock+0x1c2/0x2c0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107d767>] __lock_acquire+0x6f7/0x1d50
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107d97f>] ? __lock_acquire+0x90f/0x1d50
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107d4d9>] ? __lock_acquire+0x469/0x1d50
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107d9ac>] ? __lock_acquire+0x93c/0x1d50
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107f654>] lock_acquire+0xa4/0x130
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81176bd1>] ? d_walk+0xd1/0x4e0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff811743d0>] ? select_collect+0xc0/0xc0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff818f630a>] _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x2a/0x40
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81176bd1>] ? d_walk+0xd1/0x4e0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81176bd1>] d_walk+0xd1/0x4e0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81177187>] ? d_invalidate+0xa7/0x100
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81174570>] ? __d_drop+0xb0/0xb0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81177187>] d_invalidate+0xa7/0x100
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff811ccdac>] proc_flush_task+0x9c/0x180
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff810497a7>] release_task+0xa7/0x640
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81049714>] ? release_task+0x14/0x640
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8104b004>] wait_consider_task+0x804/0xec0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8104b7c0>] ? do_wait+0x100/0x240
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8104b7c0>] do_wait+0x100/0x240
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8104bc53>] SyS_wait4+0x63/0xe0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff81049600>] ? task_stopped_code+0x60/0x60
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff810bc9b7>] C_SYSC_wait4+0xc7/0xd0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107987e>] ? up_read+0x1e/0x40
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff818f77ce>] ? retint_swapgs+0x11/0x16
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8107ccfd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfd/0x1c0
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff810bcab9>] compat_SyS_wait4+0x9/0x10
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff8104433b>] sys32_waitpid+0xb/0x10
> > [ 1774.636012] [<ffffffff818f88ad>] sysenter_dispatch+0x7/0x1f
> >
> > Unsurprisingly, this is followed up by a NULL pointer dereference.
> >
> > A quick look at the code suggests that someone might have gotten a
> > pointer to a held lock, then somehow that lock was released. Which
> > does not seem at all likely.
> >
> > Hints?
> >
> > In the meantime, I will check for reproducibility.
>
> With two failures thus far, MTBF at about 18 hours. Hmmm...
Currently looks like something my for-4.2 commits introduced. Sorry for the
bother, tracking it down.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-03 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-02 10:49 WARN_ON() in lock_accesses() Paul E. McKenney
2015-05-02 18:13 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-05-03 7:53 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2015-05-05 18:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20150503075316.GA2663@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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