Messages in this thread | | | From | Ed Tomlinson <> | Subject | Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected | Date | Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:35:49 -0400 |
| |
On Friday 15 July 2011 07:29:22 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 07:05 -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] -> #1 (rcu_node_level_0){..-...}: > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8108b7e5>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x140 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8157808b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff810ba797>] __rcu_read_unlock+0x197/0x2d0 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8103f2f5>] select_task_rq_fair+0x585/0xa80 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8104633b>] try_to_wake_up+0x17b/0x360 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff81046575>] wake_up_process+0x15/0x20 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff810528f4>] irq_exit+0xb4/0x100 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8158197e>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6e/0x99 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff81580c53>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff810ba6e9>] __rcu_read_unlock+0xe9/0x2d0 > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff814c20d4>] sock_def_readable+0x94/0xc0 > > Ed, are you perchance running with force_irqthreads?
Yes.
I'm off to work - will test any patches when I get back in 8-10 hours.
Thanks Ed
> Paul, what appears to be happening here is that some rcu_read_unlock() > gets interrupted, possibly before calling rcu_read_unlock_special(), > possibly not if the interrupt is itself the timer interrupt. > > Supposing ->rcu_read_unlock_special is set before, any wakeup happening > from an interrupt hitting __rcu_read_unlock(): > > void __rcu_read_unlock(void) > { > struct task_struct *t = current; > > barrier(); /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */ > --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting; > barrier(); /* decrement before load of ->rcu_read_unlock_special */ > if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 && > unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special))) > rcu_read_unlock_special(t); > #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING > WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0); > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */ > } > > After --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting, but before calling > rcu_read_unlock_special(), will trigger this lock inversion. > > The alternative case, ->rcu_read_unlock_special is not set yet, it can > be set if the interrupt hitting in that same spot above, is the timer > interrupt, and the wakeup happens either from the softirq ran from the > hard IRQ tail, or as I suspect here happens, the wakeup of ksoftirqd/#.
| |