Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: linux-next: WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2680 check_flags+0x98/0x151() | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:34:45 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:28 +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Hi, > > "Kevin Winchester" <kjwinchester@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > >> On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 20:47 -0300, Kevin Winchester wrote: > >>> In next-20080530 and next-20080602 (and possibly earlier - I can't > >>> remember the linux-next tree before that I tried) I get the following: > >>> > >>> [ 12.885153] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > >>> [ 12.885203] WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2680 check_flags+0x98/0x151() > >>> [ 12.885248] Pid: 4, comm: watchdog/0 Not tainted > >>> 2.6.26-rc4-next-20080602 #13 > >>> [ 12.885292] > >>> [ 12.885293] Call Trace: > >>> [ 12.885364] [<ffffffff8022bbd5>] warn_on_slowpath+0x58/0x8a > >>> [ 12.885410] [<ffffffff804c9cfe>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x51/0x6d > >>> [ 12.885455] [<ffffffff8032ff41>] ? debug_locks_off+0x9/0x3c > >>> [ 12.885498] [<ffffffff802582dd>] ? ftrace_record_ip+0x1fa/0x272 > >>> [ 12.885542] [<ffffffff8025278a>] ? watchdog+0xc5/0x1ff > >>> [ 12.885584] [<ffffffff8020b2c0>] ? mcount_call+0x5/0x35 > >>> [ 12.885627] [<ffffffff8025278a>] ? watchdog+0xc5/0x1ff > >>> [ 12.885668] [<ffffffff80247c80>] check_flags+0x98/0x151 > >>> [ 12.885710] [<ffffffff8024ae72>] lock_acquire+0x4a/0xa9 > >>> [ 12.885753] [<ffffffff8025278a>] ? watchdog+0xc5/0x1ff > >>> [ 12.885795] [<ffffffff802526c5>] ? watchdog+0x0/0x1ff > >>> [ 12.885837] [<ffffffff804c98da>] _read_lock+0x37/0x43 > >>> [ 12.885879] [<ffffffff8025278a>] watchdog+0xc5/0x1ff > >>> [ 12.885921] [<ffffffff802526c5>] ? watchdog+0x0/0x1ff > >>> [ 12.885963] [<ffffffff8023e48b>] kthread+0x4e/0x7b > >>> [ 12.886005] [<ffffffff8020bf18>] child_rip+0xa/0x12 > >>> [ 12.886046] [<ffffffff80227d8f>] ? finish_task_switch+0x57/0x92 > >>> [ 12.886090] [<ffffffff804c9d55>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x3b/0x57 > >>> [ 12.886133] [<ffffffff8020bad3>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 > >>> [ 12.886137] [<ffffffff8023e43d>] ? kthread+0x0/0x7b > >>> [ 12.886137] [<ffffffff8020bf0e>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x12 > >>> [ 12.886137] > >>> [ 12.886137] ---[ end trace 60e7f098a6913839 ]--- > >>> [ 12.886137] possible reason: unannotated irqs-on. > >>> [ 12.886137] irq event stamp: 20 > >>> [ 12.886137] hardirqs last enabled at (19): [<ffffffff80249cc3>] > >>> trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf > >>> [ 12.886137] hardirqs last disabled at (20): [<ffffffff80248565>] > >>> trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf > >>> [ 12.886137] softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffffff80229fef>] > >>> copy_process+0x2da/0x109e > >>> [ 12.886137] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0 > >>> > >>> Do I understand this correctly that something enabled irqs in a way that > >>> got around lockdep? I assume the problem is not in watchdog, just that > >>> the watchdog was the next thing to run that interacted with irqs and > >>> thus lockdep picked up the situation then? > >>> > >>> Is there additional debugging I can do, given some instructions? If the > >>> cause is readily apparent to anyone, could they let me know (for my own > >>> interest) why it is apparent so that I can investigate things like this > >>> further next time? > >> > >> > >> You are correct - someone did sti but failed to call > >> trace_hardirqs_on(). Frequently its possible to isolate the code from > >> knowing the last recorded event: > >> > >> [ 12.886137] irq event stamp: 20 > >> [ 12.886137] hardirqs last disabled at (20): [<ffffffff80248565>] trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf > >> > >> However your compilation seems to have lost the caller IP: > >> > >> void trace_hardirqs_off(void) > >> { > >> trace_hardirqs_off_caller(CALLER_ADDR0); > >> } > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(trace_hardirqs_off); > >> > >> So that is of little help here. (Not sure how that happened, nor how you > >> could fix that - perhaps turn on some debugging knobs like build with > >> debug info etc..) > >> > > > > Could this be related to CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_INLINING (or whatever it > > is called now)? I am pretty sure I have that enabled. I will check > > the rest of my config this evening to see if there is anything else I > > can turn on/off to help. > > > >> > >>> This is completely reproducible on every boot - should I try to bisect it? > >> > >> That is a possibility yes - if you can find the offending patch it > >> should be relatively straight forward to find the offending sti. > >> > > > > Sure - I can try it this evening. Also, is calling sti the only way > > this could have happened? And is linux-next broken out into a single > > patch? I wouldn't expect there to be too many calls to sti, so a grep > > in the patch file might be quicker than bisection. > > git-log -p origin/master..next/master showed nothing interesting. > Grepping for sti() would also not find indirect calls.
Yeah - except you'd miss all the (inline) asm. Not sure there are many calls that implicity enable interrupts, but a popf can also enable them.
| |