From: Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@sf-tec.de>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Hard lockups using 3.10.0
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:02:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5775248.AWi0TF0buA@eto> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130711175015.GZ16780@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2921 bytes --]
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:52:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:07:21PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:38:37AM +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm running 3.10.0 (from openSUSE packages) on an "Intel(R) Core(TM)
> > > > i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz". I got a hard lockup on one of my CPUs twice,
> > > > once with backtrace (see attached image). Graphics is the builtin
> > > > Intel, used with X 7.6 and KDE 4.10beta2 (basically current openSUSE
> > > > 12.3+KDE).
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware that I had done anything special, just "normal" desktop
> > > > and
> > > > development usage, but no heavy compile work at the moment the lockups
> > > > happened.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I can see commit_creds() doing some rcu pointers assignment and rcu
> > > calling into the scheduler which screams about a cpu runqueue of the
> > > task we're about to reschedule not being locked. Let's add some more
> > > people who should know better.
> >
> > Ok, for the other people too lazy to bother finding the picture:
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=137353587012001&q=p3
> >
> > So we bug at:
> >
> > kernel/sched/core.c:519 assert_raw_spin_locked(&task_rq(p)->lock);
> >
> > and get there through:
> > resched_task()
> > check_preempt_wakeup()
> > check_preempt_curr()
> > try_to_wake_up()
> > autoremove_wake_function()
> > __call_rcu_nocb_enqueue()
> > __call_rcu()
> > commit_creds()
> > ____call_usermodehelper()
> > ret_from_fork()
> >
> > That don't make much sense though. Since:
> > try_to_wake_up()
> >
> > ttwu_queue()
> >
> > raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock)
> > ttwu_do_activate()
> >
> > ttwu_do_wakeup()
> >
> > check_preempt_curr()
> >
> > check_preempt_wakeup()
> >
> > resched_task(rq->curr)
> >
> > assert_raw_spin_locked(task_rq(p)->lock)
> >
> > It would somehow mean that 'task_rq(rq->curr) != rq', that's completely
> > bonkers, we do after all have rq->lock locked.
> >
> > I must also say that I've _never_ seen this bug before.
>
> New one on me as well. Is this reproducible? If so, does it happen
> when CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=n? (Given the call to call_rcu_nocb_enqueue(),
> I expect that you built with CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y.) Can't say that I
> see how call_rcu_nocb_enqueue() would have caused this, but...
>
> Well, I supposed that if RCU's callback lists got corrupted, this
> (and much else besides) could in fact happen. Does your build have
> CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=y? If not, could you please try it?
I will look tomorrow. This is a "standard" openSUSE kernel RPM, dunno right
now which repository. It is not really reproducible, it suddenly happened
again today but this time without backtrace.
Eike
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-11 19:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-11 9:38 Hard lockups using 3.10.0 Rolf Eike Beer
2013-07-11 10:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-07-11 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-11 10:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-11 17:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-07-11 19:02 ` Rolf Eike Beer [this message]
2013-08-11 6:09 ` Rolf Eike Beer
2013-08-11 8:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-08-11 11:10 ` Rolf Eike Beer
2013-08-13 10:38 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-08-13 11:57 ` Rolf Eike Beer
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=5775248.AWi0TF0buA@eto \
--to=eike-kernel@sf-tec.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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