lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
Subjectsched: BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#4
Hi guys,

I got the following after some fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest:

[ 599.355078] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#4, trinity/3143
[ 599.356017] lock: ffff88003ddd45c0, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
trinity/3143, .owner_cpu: -1
[ 599.356017] Pid: 3143, comm: trinity Not tainted
3.3.0-rc7-next-20120319-sasha-00003-g71e0de6 #60
[ 599.356017] Call Trace:
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff81898a28>] spin_dump+0x78/0xc0
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff81898a9b>] spin_bug+0x2b/0x40
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff81898ca7>] do_raw_spin_lock+0x117/0x140
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff8270b01b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x5b/0x70
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff810e5c23>] ? ttwu_queue+0xc3/0xf0
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff810e5c23>] ttwu_queue+0xc3/0xf0
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff810e6214>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x34/0x250
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff810e6367>] try_to_wake_up+0x187/0x250
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff810e65b0>] wake_up_process+0x10/0x20
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff82708942>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xe2/0x200
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff82708a69>] mutex_unlock+0x9/0x10
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff811f1078>] do_lookup+0x2d8/0x3b0
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff817ca2f7>] ? security_inode_permission+0x17/0x20
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff811f1758>] link_path_walk+0x138/0x910
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff811f0958>] ? path_init+0x478/0x5d0
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff81898ae8>] ? __raw_spin_lock_init+0x38/0x70
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff811f378a>] path_openat+0xba/0x500
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff810ec448>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xc8/0x140
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff8111264e>] ? put_lock_stats.clone.19+0xe/0x40
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff811f3c14>] do_filp_open+0x44/0xa0
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff810e7b41>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff8270b230>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x30/0x60
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff812037f6>] ? alloc_fd+0x176/0x240
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff811e2a3d>] do_sys_open+0xfd/0x1d0
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff811e2b2c>] sys_open+0x1c/0x20
[ 599.356017] [<ffffffff8270c97d>] system_call_fastpath+0x1a/0x1f

I don't think that the actual problem is with the ttwu code, but with
the spinlocks themselves - why is the owning task set but not the
owning cpu?

btw,
Would it make sense to replace what's going on it spin_dump() with an
actual BUG()?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-19 22:07    [W:0.025 / U:22.392 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site