From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: BUG? locking issue(networking?) with latest git Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:38:54 +0000 Message-ID: <20080904093854.GA5407@ff.dom.local> References: <20080904072155.GA4691@ff.dom.local> <200809041203.07460.denys@visp.net.lb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Denys Fedoryshchenko Return-path: Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.238]:54049 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754147AbYIDJjC (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 05:39:02 -0400 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 69so2756083wri.5 for ; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200809041203.07460.denys@visp.net.lb> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:03:07PM +0300, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > On Thursday 04 September 2008, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > On 03-09-2008 13:22, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote: > > > I am getting strange lockup, all operations (tc, ifconfig,pppd) after few > > > days running pppoe-server. > > > > > > Programgs getting blocked very strange way, i am not able to kill them > > > even. Softlockup detection enabled, lock dependencies (except lock > > > dependency engine debugging), RT mutexes and deadlock detection enabled > > > too. > > > > > > I notice this bug few weeks ago, even before latest patches, and seems it > > > still remains. > > > > Do you mean this didn't happen with some 2.6.27-rc's? (There was quite > > substantial change in ppp_generic with lock_kernel() in 2.6.27-rc1.) > I was not able to run early rc's on my pppoe's. Do you suggest to try reverse > those changes? No, I don't think reverting them would be easy enough (except moving back to 2.6.26). I simply wonder if you think there were some 2.6.27-rc's tried by you, which didn't lockup like this. > > Alas it shows only some tasks waiting for locks. Maybe it's enough for > > someone with better ppp knowledge, but unless there is such a response > > I guess you should better try with PROVE_LOCKING turned on yet. > It is already turned on. So I misread this "except lock dependency engine debugging" part. OK, I'll try to think about it, but any additional logs should be helpful. BTW, I wonder if it's possible to test this without SMP? Jarek P.