Re: [patch] Re: [regression bisect -next] BUG: usingsmp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 22:42 -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> > I get a slew of these on boot.
> 
> Ouch.  This fix it up for you?
> 
> sched: protect task_hot() buddy check.
> 
> Eric Paris reported that commit f685ceacab07d3f6c236f04803e2f2f0dbcc5afb
> causes boot time PREEMPT_DEBUG complaints.
> 
> [    4.590699] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: rmmod/1314
> [    4.593043] caller is task_hot+0x86/0xd0
> [    4.593872] Pid: 1314, comm: rmmod Tainted: G        W  2.6.32-rc3-fanotify #127
> [    4.595443] Call Trace:
> [    4.596177]  [<ffffffff812ad35b>] debug_smp_processor_id+0x11b/0x120
> [    4.597337]  [<ffffffff81051d66>] task_hot+0x86/0xd0
> [    4.598320]  [<ffffffff81066275>] set_task_cpu+0x115/0x270
> [    4.599368]  [<ffffffff810985ab>] kthread_bind+0x6b/0x100
> [    4.600354]  [<ffffffff810914f0>] start_workqueue_thread+0x30/0x60
> [    4.601545]  [<ffffffff810941dd>] __create_workqueue_key+0x18d/0x2f0
> [    4.602526]  [<ffffffff810d9bee>] stop_machine_create+0x4e/0xd0
> [    4.603811]  [<ffffffff810c5818>] sys_delete_module+0x98/0x250
> [    4.604922]  [<ffffffff810e2505>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x205/0x290
> [    4.606202]  [<ffffffff81013202>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> 
> Don't use this_rq() when preemptible.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 91ffb01..21f52c4 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2008,7 +2008,8 @@ task_hot(struct task_struct *p, u64 now, struct sched_domain *sd)
>  	/*
>  	 * Buddy candidates are cache hot:
>  	 */
> -	if (sched_feat(CACHE_HOT_BUDDY) && this_rq()->nr_running &&
> +	if (sched_feat(CACHE_HOT_BUDDY) && 
> +			(preempt_count() ? this_rq()->nr_running : 1) &&
>  			(&p->se == cfs_rq_of(&p->se)->next ||
>  			 &p->se == cfs_rq_of(&p->se)->last))
>  		return 1;

hm, the problem is kthread_bind(). It is rummaging around in scheduler 
internals without holding the runqueue lock - and this now got exposed. 
Even though it is operating on (supposedly ...) inactive tasks, the guts 
of that function should be moved into sched.c and it should be fixed to 
have proper locking.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/