Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] rcu commits for 2.6.40
From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Thu May 19 2011 - 20:14:35 EST
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 02:45:52PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 05/19/2011 02:15 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:51:26PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >> [ 85.194797] <idle>-0 0d... 85152953us : rcu_irq_enter: 1 49
> >> [ 85.194808] <idle>-0 0dN.. 85153081us : <stack trace>
> >> [ 85.194809] => rcu_irq_exit
> >> [ 85.194810] => irq_exit
> >> [ 85.194811] => smp_apic_timer_interrupt
> >> [ 85.194812] => apic_timer_interrupt
> >> [ 85.194813] => cpu_idle
> >> [ 85.194813] => rest_init
> >> [ 85.194814] => start_kernel
> >> [ 85.194815] => x86_64_start_reservations
> >
> > So it's the dynticks_nesting going crazy. As if we had rcu_irq_enter()
> > without rcu_irq_exit().
> >
> > I see you have CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS=y
> > and the locking api selftest is doing a strange thing: if we look
> > at HARDIRQ_ENTER(), it calls irq_enter(), but HARDIRQ_EXIT() only
> > calls __irq_exit(). Which means it lacks the rcu_irq_exit().
> >
> > So, if I understood correctly the thing there, some selftests simulating
> > the hardirq context are unbalancing the rcu state.
> >
> > Does that help if you unset CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKING_API_SELFTESTS ?
>
>
> yes, after unset that, no warning and delay...
Thanks a lot for all your testing! I've just proposed a fix, let's see
how that goes.
--
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/