public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question on lockdep and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:17:12 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5111BD28.50407@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130206015430.GA9161@home.goodmis.org>

On 02/05/2013 05:54 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> I'm not sure the swapper task is part of the 'do_each_thread()' loop.
>
> Perhaps what you want to do is add a:
>
> 	lockdep_print_held_locks(current);

I'll add that and test...

> I'm curious. Does your code grab a read lock? If you grab the same read
> lock multiple times it adds to the list each time. Thus if you have
> anything like:
>
> 	for (i = 0; i < 100; i++ ) {
> 		read_lock(&lock);
> 	}
>
> 	for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
> 		read_unlock(&lock);
> 	}
>
> That will fill up the held locks quite a bit.
>
> The above code I showed is ridiculous and I doubt you have it, but if
> you have something that does lots of recursive reads for some reason,
> that could be an issue.

I have only one read/write lock in my module, and it looks like
I always lock it as a writer (will fix that soon for performance
reasons, but it should be valid locking I think).

I have no rcu locks at all in my module currently.

I've seen similar lockups on another machine that does not use
this module, but it uses a hacked up pktgen.  I haven't found
a test case that reproduces this on a clean upstream build,
but I am still fairly suspicious that it isn't my code.
Famous last words I'm sure :)

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


  reply	other threads:[~2013-02-06  2:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-06  1:10 Question on lockdep and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH Ben Greear
2013-02-06  1:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-06  2:17   ` Ben Greear [this message]
2013-02-06  2:26   ` Ben Greear
2013-02-06  2:52     ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-06  3:30       ` Ben Greear
2013-02-06  4:36         ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-06  6:23           ` Ben Greear
2013-02-06 13:21             ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-06 15:56               ` Ben Greear
2013-02-06 16:07                 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-06 16:39                   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-06 16:46                     ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-06 16:58                   ` Ben Greear
2013-02-06 17:03                     ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-06  4:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-02-06  6:20   ` Ben Greear

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=5111BD28.50407@candelatech.com \
    --to=greearb@candelatech.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.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