lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: ipv6: tunnel: hang when destroying ipv6 tunnel
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 03/31, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2012-03-31 at 19:51 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > It appears that a hang may occur when destroying an ipv6 tunnel, which
>>> > I've reproduced several times in a KVM vm.
>>
>> kernel version?
>
> latest linux-next
>
>>> > [ 1561.564172] INFO: task kworker/u:2:3140 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>
>> And nobody else?
>
> Some more messages follow a bit later which get stuck in vfs related code.
>
>> It would be nice to know what sysrq-t says, in particular the trace
>> of khelper thread is interesting.
>
> Sure, I'll get one when it happens again.

So here's the stack of the usermode thread:

[ 336.614015] kworker/u:2 S ffff880062c13000 5176 4539 3031 0x00000000
[ 336.614015] ffff880062fb38d0 0000000000000082 ffff880062fb3860
0000000000000001
[ 336.614015] ffff880062fb3fd8 00000000001d4580 ffff880062fb2010
00000000001d4580
[ 336.614015] 00000000001d4580 00000000001d4580 ffff880062fb3fd8
00000000001d4580
[ 336.614015] Call Trace:
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff826a8e54>] schedule+0x24/0x70
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff825fd66d>] p9_client_rpc+0x13d/0x360
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810d7850>] ? wake_up_bit+0x40/0x40
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810e3671>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810e399d>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x9d/0xd0
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff825ff5ff>] p9_client_walk+0x8f/0x220
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff815a8e3b>] v9fs_vfs_lookup+0xab/0x1c0
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811ee0c0>] d_alloc_and_lookup+0x40/0x80
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811fdea0>] ? d_lookup+0x30/0x50
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811f0aea>] do_lookup+0x28a/0x3b0
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff817c9117>] ? security_inode_permission+0x17/0x20
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811f1c07>] link_path_walk+0x167/0x420
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811ee630>] ? generic_readlink+0xb0/0xb0
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff81896d88>] ? __raw_spin_lock_init+0x38/0x70
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811f24da>] path_openat+0xba/0x500
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff81057253>] ? sched_clock+0x13/0x20
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810ed805>] ? sched_clock_local+0x25/0x90
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810ed940>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xd0/0x120
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811f2a34>] do_filp_open+0x44/0xa0
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff81119acd>] ? __lock_release+0x8d/0x1d0
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810e3671>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810e399d>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x9d/0xd0
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff826aa7f0>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x30/0x60
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811ea74d>] open_exec+0x2d/0xf0
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811eb888>] do_execve_common+0x128/0x320
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff811ebb05>] do_execve+0x35/0x40
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810589e5>] sys_execve+0x45/0x70
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff826acc28>] kernel_execve+0x68/0xd0
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810cd6a6>] ? ____call_usermodehelper+0xf6/0x130
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810cd6f9>] call_helper+0x19/0x20
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff826acbb4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810e3f80>] ? finish_task_switch+0x80/0x110
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff826aaeb4>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff810cd6e0>] ? ____call_usermodehelper+0x130/0x130
[ 336.614015] [<ffffffff826acbb0>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13
While it seems that 9p is the culprit, I have to point out that this
bug is easily reproducible, and it happens each time due to a
call_usermode_helper() call. Other than that 9p behaves perfectly and
I'd assume that I'd be seeing other things break besides
call_usermode_helper() related ones.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-01 01:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site