Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:01:47 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: BUG: tracer_alloc_buffers returned with preemption imbalance |
| |
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 06:12:51PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I got some boot hangs in the below branches and linux-next: > > rcu/dev.2012.06.21c-4f4a59a > rcu/fixes.2012.06.20a-b43145c > rcu/rcu.next-3f26dd3 > > They all start with an error > > [ 0.131005] initcall tracer_alloc_buffers+0x0/0x22e returned with preemption imbalance > > Then followed by lots of scheduling while atomic bugs: > > [ 0.143206] Brought up 2 CPUs > [ 0.144996] ---------------- > [ 0.145989] | NMI testsuite: > [ 0.147988] -------------------- > [ 0.149238] remote IPI: > [ 0.149239] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x00000002 > [ 0.151082] no locks held by swapper/0/1. > [ 0.152991] Modules linked in: > [ 0.153992] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.5.0-rc3+ #24 > [ 0.155990] Call Trace: > [ 0.157056] [<ffffffff81a21ee1>] __schedule_bug+0x67/0x75 > [ 0.158999] [<ffffffff81a3717c>] __schedule+0xb0/0x8b0 > [ 0.160995] [<ffffffff810b8fe2>] ? save_trace+0x3d/0xae > [ 0.162993] [<ffffffff8105ad19>] ? pvclock_clocksource_read+0x4d/0xc3 > [ 0.164992] [<ffffffff810bbdff>] ? mark_lock+0x23c/0x502 > [ 0.166993] [<ffffffff8105a10b>] ? kvm_clock_read+0x2e/0x36 > [ 0.168991] [<ffffffff81a37c61>] schedule+0x65/0x67 > [ 0.170992] [<ffffffff81a35542>] schedule_timeout+0x2e/0x22a > [ 0.172991] [<ffffffff810b8c1c>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf > [ 0.174992] [<ffffffff8109c890>] ? local_clock+0x41/0x5a > [ 0.176995] [<ffffffff81a392f0>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x2e/0x48 > [ 0.178990] [<ffffffff810bd647>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x125/0x181 > [ 0.180995] [<ffffffff810bd6b0>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf > [ 0.182989] [<ffffffff81a37b06>] wait_for_common+0x10a/0x140 > [ 0.184989] [<ffffffff8109a2f2>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x2cb/0x2cb > [ 0.186990] [<ffffffff810ea4c6>] ? call_rcu_bh+0x19/0x19 > [ 0.188988] [<ffffffff81a37bfa>] wait_for_completion+0x1d/0x1f > [ 0.190989] [<ffffffff8108752d>] wait_rcu_gp+0x4d/0x54 > [ 0.192988] [<ffffffff81087534>] ? wait_rcu_gp+0x54/0x54 > [ 0.194987] [<ffffffff81a37a40>] ? wait_for_common+0x44/0x140 > [ 0.196987] [<ffffffff810e8713>] synchronize_sched+0x50/0x52 > [ 0.198987] [<ffffffff8103b272>] unregister_nmi_handler+0xc6/0xd5 > [ 0.200989] [<ffffffff8142fa79>] ? delay_tsc+0x49/0xa5 > [ 0.202988] [<ffffffff82259db7>] test_nmi_ipi.constprop.2+0x72/0x85 > [ 0.204986] [<ffffffff82259dca>] ? test_nmi_ipi.constprop.2+0x85/0x85 > [ 0.206986] [<ffffffff82259e27>] remote_ipi+0x5d/0x62 > [ 0.208985] [<ffffffff82259ce2>] dotest.constprop.1+0x6/0x69 > [ 0.210985] [<ffffffff82259ede>] nmi_selftest+0x60/0x16d > [ 0.212986] [<ffffffff822558da>] native_smp_cpus_done+0x1c/0x111 > [ 0.214989] [<ffffffff8226198b>] smp_init+0xe2/0xeb > [ 0.216986] [<ffffffff82248c0f>] kernel_init+0xa9/0x1c0 > [ 0.218984] [<ffffffff810bd538>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x16/0x181 > [ 0.220989] [<ffffffff81a417b4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 > [ 0.222989] [<ffffffff81a396f0>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13 > [ 0.224990] [<ffffffff82248b66>] ? start_kernel+0x3a3/0x3a3 > [ 0.226983] [<ffffffff81a417b0>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13 > [ 0.231002] ok | > [ 0.231998] local IPI: > [ 0.231998] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x00000003 > ... > > The first bad commit is > > commit b43145c912b7dabd190ec45cc31c2b96d64715ee > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Date: Tue Jun 19 11:58:27 2012 -0700 > > rcu: Disable preemption in rcu_blocking_is_gp() > > It is time to optimize CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU's synchronize_rcu() > for uniprocessor optimization, which means that rcu_blocking_is_gp() > can no longer rely on RCU read-side critical sections having disabled > preemption. This commit therefore disables preemption across > rcu_blocking_is_gp()'s scan of the cpu_online_mask. > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c > index ce175b6..c0cc41f 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c > ... > static inline int rcu_blocking_is_gp(void) > { > might_sleep(); /* Check for RCU read-side critical section. */ > + preempt_disable(); > return num_online_cpus() <= 1; > + preempt_enable(); > }
Thank you! I have no idea how a preempt_disable() causes that badness to happen, but this commit is not yet critically important, so I will drop it.
Thanx, Paul
| |