lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:690 __lock_acquire+0x168/0x164b()
On (10/21/11 02:14), David Rientjes wrote:
> > I thought I've started understand this, but it was wrong feeling.
> >
> > The error indeed is that class name and lock name are mismatch
> >
> > 689 if (class->key == key) {
> > 690 WARN_ON_ONCE(class->name != lock->name);
> > 691 return class;
> > 692 }
> >
> > And the problem as far as I understand only shows up when active_load_balance_cpu_stop() gets
> > called on rq with active_balance.
> >
> > double_unlock_balance() is called with busiest_rq spin lock held and I don't see who
> > calls lockdep_init_map() on busiest_rq somewhere around. work_struct has its
> > own lockdep_map touched after __queue_work(cpu, wq, work).
> >
> > I'm not sure that reverting is the best option we have, since it's not fixing
> > the possible race condition it's just mask it.
> >
>
> How does it mask the race condition? Before the memset(), the ->name
> field was never _cleared_ in lockdep_init_map() like it is now, it was
> only stored.
>

Well, if we have race condition between `reader' and `writer', then it's our luck that we only hit it
with ->name modification. It could be `->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id' or while iterating thr' `class_cache'
to NULL it. Current implementation may only race with `->name' but in theory we have the whole bunch of
opportunities. Of course I may be wrong.


> > I'm not very lucky at reproducing issue, in fact I had only one trace so far.
> >
> > [10172.218213] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [10172.218233] WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:690 __lock_acquire+0x168/0x164b()
> > [10172.218346] [<ffffffff8103e7c8>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7e/0x96
> > [10172.218353] [<ffffffff8103e7f5>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x17
> > [10172.218361] [<ffffffff8106fee5>] __lock_acquire+0x168/0x164b
> > [10172.218370] [<ffffffff81034645>] ? find_busiest_group+0x7b6/0x941
> > [10172.218381] [<ffffffff8102a5e3>] ? double_rq_lock+0x4d/0x52
> > [10172.218389] [<ffffffff8107197e>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac
> > [10172.218397] [<ffffffff8102a5e3>] ? double_rq_lock+0x4d/0x52
> > [10172.218404] [<ffffffff8102a5c4>] ? double_rq_lock+0x2e/0x52
> > [10172.218414] [<ffffffff8148fb49>] _raw_spin_lock_nested+0x3a/0x49
> > [10172.218421] [<ffffffff8102a5e3>] ? double_rq_lock+0x4d/0x52
> > [10172.218428] [<ffffffff8148fabe>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x3e/0x45
> > [10172.218435] [<ffffffff8102a5c4>] ? double_rq_lock+0x2e/0x52
> > [10172.218442] [<ffffffff8102a5e3>] double_rq_lock+0x4d/0x52
> > [10172.218449] [<ffffffff810349cc>] load_balance+0x1fc/0x769
> > [10172.218458] [<ffffffff810075c5>] ? native_sched_clock+0x38/0x65
> > [10172.218466] [<ffffffff8148ca17>] ? __schedule+0x2f5/0xa2d
> > [10172.218474] [<ffffffff8148caf5>] __schedule+0x3d3/0xa2d
> > [10172.218480] [<ffffffff8148ca17>] ? __schedule+0x2f5/0xa2d
> > [10172.218490] [<ffffffff8104db06>] ? add_timer_on+0xd/0x196
> > [10172.218497] [<ffffffff8148fc02>] ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x4a/0x51
> > [10172.218505] [<ffffffff8105907b>] ? process_one_work+0x3ed/0x54c
> > [10172.218512] [<ffffffff81059126>] ? process_one_work+0x498/0x54c
> > [10172.218518] [<ffffffff81058e1b>] ? process_one_work+0x18d/0x54c
> > [10172.218526] [<ffffffff814902d0>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x28/0x56
> > [10172.218533] [<ffffffff81033950>] ? get_parent_ip+0xe/0x3e
> > [10172.218540] [<ffffffff8148d26e>] schedule+0x55/0x57
> > [10172.218547] [<ffffffff8105970f>] worker_thread+0x217/0x21c
> > [10172.218554] [<ffffffff810594f8>] ? manage_workers.isra.21+0x16c/0x16c
> > [10172.218564] [<ffffffff8105d4de>] kthread+0x9a/0xa2
> > [10172.218573] [<ffffffff81497984>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > [10172.218580] [<ffffffff8102d6d2>] ? finish_task_switch+0x76/0xf3
> > [10172.218587] [<ffffffff81490778>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
> > [10172.218595] [<ffffffff8105d444>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x53/0x53
> > [10172.218602] [<ffffffff81497980>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13
> > [10172.218607] ---[ end trace 9d11d6b5e4b96730 ]---
> >
>
> This is with the revert?
>

Nope, sorry for being unclear, this is the only trace I got.

Sergey


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-21 11:31    [W:1.023 / U:0.848 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site