Re: console: lockup on boot

[Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>]

On 06/10/2014 11:59 AM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 06/06/2014 03:05 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 05/30/2014 10:07 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Fri 30-05-14 09:58:14, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>>>> On 05/30/2014 09:11 AM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I sometime see lockups when booting my KVM guest with the latest -next kernel,
>>>>>>> it basically hangs right when it should start 'init', and after a while I get
>>>>>>> the following spew:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [   30.790833] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#1, swapper/1/0
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe related to this report: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/30/26
>>>>> from Jet Chen which was bisected to
>>>>>
>>>>> commit bafe980f5afc7ccc693fd8c81c8aa5a02fbb5ae0
>>>>> Author:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>>>>> AuthorDate: Thu May 22 10:43:35 2014 +1000
>>>>> Commit:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
>>>>> CommitDate: Thu May 22 10:43:35 2014 +1000
>>>>>
>>>>>      printk: enable interrupts before calling console_trylock_for_printk()
>>>>>          We need interrupts disabled when calling console_trylock_for_printk() only
>>>>>      so that cpu id we pass to can_use_console() remains valid (for other
>>>>>      things console_sem provides all the exclusion we need and deadlocks on
>>>>>      console_sem due to interrupts are impossible because we use
>>>>>      down_trylock()).  However if we are rescheduled, we are guaranteed to run
>>>>>      on an online cpu so we can easily just get the cpu id in
>>>>>      can_use_console().
>>>>>          We can lose a bit of performance when we enable interrupts in
>>>>>      vprintk_emit() and then disable them again in console_unlock() but OTOH it
>>>>>      can somewhat reduce interrupt latency caused by console_unlock()
>>>>>      especially since later in the patch series we will want to spin on
>>>>>      console_sem in console_trylock_for_printk().
>>>>>          Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>>>>>      Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>    Yeah, very likely. I think I see the problem, I'll send the fix shortly.
>>
>> Hi Jan,
>>
>> It seems that the issue I'm seeing is different from the "[prink]  BUG: spinlock
>> lockup suspected on CPU#0, swapper/1".
>>
>> Is there anything else I could try here? The issue is very common during testing.
> 
> Sasha,
> 
> Is this bisectable? Maybe that's the best way forward here.

I've ran a bisection again and ended up at the same commit as Jet Chen (the commit
unfortunately already made it to Linus's tree).

Note that I did try Jan's proposed fix and that didn't solve the issue for me, I
believe we're seeing different issues caused by the same commit.


939f04bec1a4ef6ba4370b0f34b01decc844b1b1 is the first bad commit
commit 939f04bec1a4ef6ba4370b0f34b01decc844b1b1
Author: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Date:   Wed Jun 4 16:11:37 2014 -0700

    printk: enable interrupts before calling console_trylock_for_printk()

    We need interrupts disabled when calling console_trylock_for_printk()
    only so that cpu id we pass to can_use_console() remains valid (for
    other things console_sem provides all the exclusion we need and
    deadlocks on console_sem due to interrupts are impossible because we use
    down_trylock()).  However if we are rescheduled, we are guaranteed to
    run on an online cpu so we can easily just get the cpu id in
    can_use_console().

    We can lose a bit of performance when we enable interrupts in
    vprintk_emit() and then disable them again in console_unlock() but OTOH
    it can somewhat reduce interrupt latency caused by console_unlock()
    especially since later in the patch series we will want to spin on
    console_sem in console_trylock_for_printk().

    Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
    Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
    Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>


Thanks,
Sasha