From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751871Ab1GZGAg (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:00:36 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:33398 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751750Ab1GZGAc (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:00:32 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,267,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="31447772" Message-ID: <4E2E57FF.7030206@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:00:31 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Gleixner CC: Maarten Lankhorst , LKML , linux-rt-users Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.0-rt3 References: <4E2C2ED6.4040904@gmail.com> <4E2DEC1A.5070109@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2DEC1A.5070109@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/25/2011 03:20 PM, Darren Hart wrote: > > > On 07/24/2011 09:12 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > ... > >>> Also not sure where this one came from: >>> [ 37.456688] BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#3, threaded-ml/1619 >>> [ 37.456690] lock: ffff8801fdc74d50, .magic: 00000000, .owner: /-1, .owner_cpu: 0 >>> [ 37.456692] Pid: 1619, comm: threaded-ml Tainted: G C 3.0.0-rt3-patser+ #39 >>> [ 37.456693] Call Trace: >>> [ 37.456697] [] spin_bug+0xa0/0xa8 >>> [ 37.456699] [] do_raw_spin_lock+0xa2/0x170 >>> [ 37.456702] [] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50 >>> [ 37.456704] [] _raw_spin_lock+0x23/0x30 >>> [ 37.456706] [] rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock+0x2e/0xd0 >>> [ 37.456708] [] futex_requeue+0x47a/0x850 >>> [ 37.456710] [] do_futex+0xae/0xb00 >>> [ 37.456712] [] ? fget_light+0x6d/0x110 >>> [ 37.456714] [] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x2e7/0x310 >>> [ 37.456715] [] ? sys_recvmsg+0x75/0x90 >>> [ 37.456717] [] compat_sys_futex+0xf6/0x190 >>> [ 37.456719] [] ? syscall_trace_enter+0x184/0x210 >>> [ 37.456721] [] ia32_do_call+0x13/0x13 >> >> Urrgh, that's not a good one. Darren, can you please have a look at that? >> > > Will do. > > Maarten, what are you running when you hit this? > rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock() is only called by the requeue_pi code and > there is no libc support for that yet, so I'm surprised to see that in > the stack trace (unless you're running my futextest suite). I've run a couple iterations of functional/run.sh from futextest which exercises the requeue_pi code with no errors. I also wrote a new test to improperly use the requeue_pi path, and the kernel properly detects the abuse and kicks the user back with -EINVAL. Could you try running futextest on your system to see if you can reproduce the above? Specifically the functional/run.sh script (no need to run the performance bits). http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dvhart/futextest.git;a=summary -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel