From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug()
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:27:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5051A71C.1070802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <504412F7.1020200@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 09/03/2012 10:16 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 10:40 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug:
>>
>> [ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002
>> [ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
>> [ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34
>> [ 0.045861] Call Trace:
>> [ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70
>> [ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10
>> [ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450
>> [ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70
>> [ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90
>> [ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0
>> [ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30
>> [ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70
>> [ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30
>> [ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50
>> [ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370
>> [ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0
>> [ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0
>> [ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310
>> [ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744
>> [ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50
>> [ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680
>> [ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>> [ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>> [ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f
>> [ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>> [ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
>>
>> It was caused by that:
>>
>> native_smp_prepare_cpus()
>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>> mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs
>> __might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check
>> might_resched()
>> __schedule()
>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>> schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug
>>
>> The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted
>> while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug.
>>
>> This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check
>> until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified.
>
> Could I get some comments on this patch?
Oh, I just realised I'm using the wrong address...
So could I get some comments on the patch?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
>> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
>> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
>> */
>> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state))
>> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state
>> + && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
>> __schedule_bug(prev);
>> rcu_sleep_check();
>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-13 9:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-22 2:40 [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug() Michael Wang
2012-09-03 2:16 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-13 9:27 ` Michael Wang [this message]
2012-09-13 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 3:02 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-17 2:25 ` Michael Wang
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=5051A71C.1070802@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.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).