Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:29:14 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: lockdep WARNING on check_critical_timing() |
| |
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:00:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 09:59 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > This is possibly an aged warning. > > > > if (!hardirq_count()) { > > if (softirq_count()) { > > /* like the above, but with softirqs */ > > => DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(current->softirqs_enabled); > > > > [ 3.600059] Testing tracer preemptoff: > > [ 3.760076] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 3.760866] WARNING: at /c/kernel-tests/src/stable/kernel/lockdep.c:3506 check_flags+0x125/0x154() > > [ 3.762160] Modules linked in: > > [ 3.762643] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc3-00013-g01f8a27 #158 > > [ 3.763679] Call Trace: > > [ 3.764053] [<c1020916>] warn_slowpath_common+0x4d/0x62 > > [ 3.764838] [<c105c000>] ? check_flags+0x125/0x154 > > [ 3.765567] [<c102093f>] warn_slowpath_null+0x14/0x18 > > [ 3.766317] [<c105c000>] check_flags+0x125/0x154 > > [ 3.766998] [<c105e02f>] lock_acquire+0x3b/0xef > > [ 3.767689] [<c12461ba>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3e/0x4e > > [ 3.768494] [<c12404b8>] ? check_critical_timing+0x112/0x160 > > [ 3.769340] [<c12404b8>] check_critical_timing+0x112/0x160 > > [ 3.770047] [<c1027474>] ? __do_softirq+0x19b/0x1f9 > > [ 3.770047] [<c1027474>] ? __do_softirq+0x19b/0x1f9 > > [ 3.770047] [<c1088549>] trace_preempt_on+0x8d/0xc9 > > [ 3.770047] [<c1027238>] ? __local_bh_enable+0x87/0x8a > > [ 3.770047] [<c1046c85>] sub_preempt_count+0x7f/0x9c > > [ 3.770047] [<c1027238>] __local_bh_enable+0x87/0x8a > > [ 3.770047] [<c1027474>] __do_softirq+0x19b/0x1f9 > > [ 3.770047] [<c10272d9>] ? ftrace_define_fields_irq_handler_entry+0x45/0x45 > > [ 3.770047] <IRQ> [<c1027723>] ? irq_exit+0x4f/0xa9 > > [ 3.770047] [<c1015e03>] ? smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x70/0x7e > > [ 3.770047] [<c1246daf>] ? apic_timer_interrupt+0x2f/0x34 > > [ 3.770047] [<c108007b>] ? ring_buffer_discard_commit+0x24c/0x24c > > [ 3.770047] [<c1139c87>] ? __const_udelay+0x1/0x1c > > [ 3.770047] [<c108566f>] ? trace_selftest_startup_preemptoff+0x74/0xed > > [ 3.770047] [<c1085b57>] ? register_tracer+0x11c/0x1f7 > > [ 3.770047] [<c13c1bf3>] ? init_function_trace+0xf/0xf > > [ 3.770047] [<c13c1c00>] ? init_irqsoff_tracer+0xd/0x11 > > [ 3.770047] [<c1001158>] ? do_one_initcall+0x70/0x118 > > [ 3.770047] [<c13afa03>] ? kernel_init+0xec/0x169 > > [ 3.770047] [<c13af917>] ? start_kernel+0x2f2/0x2f2 > > [ 3.770047] [<c124773a>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10 > > > > This is the same as a previous bug. It is caused by rcu doing the check > in the function tracer and then triggering a lockdep warning. > > Paul, > > Didn't we talk about having the rcu_dereference_raw() not do the check? > The function tracer is just too invasive to add work arounds to prevent > lockdep from screaming about it.
Actually, rcu_dereference_raw() is already supposed to bypass the lockdep checks. And the code looks to me like it does the bypass, OR-ing "1" into the asssertion condition.
So what am I missing here?
Thanx, Paul
| |