From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751898Ab3BFGUZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:20:25 -0500 Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:52826 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751890Ab3BFGUX (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 01:20:23 -0500 Message-ID: <5111F623.1090606@candelatech.com> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:20:19 -0800 From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Question on lockdep and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH References: <5111AD8D.1080005@candelatech.com> <20130206042611.GB9161@home.goodmis.org> In-Reply-To: <20130206042611.GB9161@home.goodmis.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/05/2013 08:26 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 05:10:37PM -0800, Ben Greear wrote: >> >> >> =============================== >> [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] >> 3.7.6+ #4 Tainted: G C O >> ------------------------------- >> /home/greearb/git/linux-3.7.dev.y/kernel/rcutree.c:360 Illegal idle entry in RCU read-side critical section.! >> >> other info that might help us debug this: >> >> >> RCU used illegally from idle CPU! >> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1 >> RCU used illegally from extended quiescent state! >> 1 lock held by swapper/1/0: >> #0: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [] rcu_read_lock+0x0/0x6f >> >> stack backtrace: >> Pid: 0, comm: swapper/1 Tainted: G C O 3.7.6+ #4 >> Call Trace: >> [] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xfc/0x105 >> [] rcu_eqs_enter_common+0xef/0x178 >> [] rcu_irq_exit+0x7f/0xb0 >> [] irq_exit+0xc0/0xcc >> [] do_IRQ+0x97/0xae >> [] common_interrupt+0x72/0x72 >> [] ? mwait_idle+0x77/0x9f >> [] ? mwait_idle+0x6e/0x9f >> [] cpu_idle+0x68/0xbc >> [] start_secondary+0x1fc/0x203 > > BTW, did the above error only happen when you added the dump of the > locks, or was it always there? Is this the bug you were trying to debug? It's often there, at least..and was from the beginning, and I am interested in debugging it. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com