lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [BUG] 2.6.28-git LOCKDEP: Possible recursive rq->lock
From
Date
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:50 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> [2009-01-07 14:12:43]:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 17:59 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> >
> > > =============================================
> > > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> > > 2.6.28-autotest-tip-sv #1
> > > ---------------------------------------------
> > > klogd/5062 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > (&rq->lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff8022aca2>] task_rq_lock+0x45/0x7e
> > >
> > > but task is already holding lock:
> > > (&rq->lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff805f7354>] schedule+0x158/0xa31
> > >
> > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > 1 lock held by klogd/5062:
> > > #0: (&rq->lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff805f7354>] schedule+0x158/0xa31
> > >
> > > stack backtrace:
> > > Pid: 5062, comm: klogd Not tainted 2.6.28-autotest-tip-sv #1
> > > Call Trace:
> > > [<ffffffff80259ef1>] __lock_acquire+0xeb9/0x16a4
> > > [<ffffffff8025a6c0>] ? __lock_acquire+0x1688/0x16a4
> > > [<ffffffff8025a761>] lock_acquire+0x85/0xa9
> > > [<ffffffff8022aca2>] ? task_rq_lock+0x45/0x7e
> > > [<ffffffff805fa4d4>] _spin_lock+0x31/0x66
> > > [<ffffffff8022aca2>] ? task_rq_lock+0x45/0x7e
> > > [<ffffffff8022aca2>] task_rq_lock+0x45/0x7e
> > > [<ffffffff80233363>] try_to_wake_up+0x88/0x27a
> > > [<ffffffff80233581>] wake_up_process+0x10/0x12
> > > [<ffffffff805f775c>] schedule+0x560/0xa31
> >
> > I'd be most curious to know where in schedule we are.
>
> ok, we are in sched.c:3777
>
> double_unlock_balance(this_rq, busiest);
> if (active_balance)
> >>>>>>>>>>> wake_up_process(busiest->migration_thread);
>
> } else
>
> In active balance in newidle. This implies sched_mc was 2 at that time.
> let me trace this and debug further.

How about something like this? Strictly speaking we'll not deadlock,
because ttwu will not be able to place the migration task on our rq, but
since the code can deal with both rqs getting unlocked, this seems the
easiest way out.

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -3777,8 +3777,13 @@ redo:
}

double_unlock_balance(this_rq, busiest);
+ /*
+ * Should not call ttwu while holding a rq->lock
+ */
+ spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
if (active_balance)
wake_up_process(busiest->migration_thread);
+ spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);

} else
sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-07 15:33    [W:0.055 / U:1.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site