lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Suspend resume problem (WAS Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8.10-rt6)
From
Date
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 19:09 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> The next thing that happens is that RCU assumes nobody is doing any
> progress (for almost 28secs) and triggers NMIs & printks to get some
> attention. I have a trace where
> - CPU0: arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace_handler() => printk()
> has "lock" and is spinning for logbuf_lock
>
> - CPU1: print_cpu_stall() => printk() (spinning for the lock) => NMI =>
> arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace_handler()
> it may have logbuf_lock and is spinning for "lock"
>
> I can't tell if CPU1 got the logbuf_lock at this time but it seemed that
> it made no progress until I ended it.
> This NMI releated deadlock is a problem which should also trigger
> mainline, right?

Well, yeah, as sending out a NMI stack dump is sorta the last resort,
and is dangerous to do printks from NMI context.

>
> Now, the time jump on the other hand is the real issue here and is
> RT-only. It looks like we get a big number of timer updates via
> tick_do_update_jiffies64() because according to ktime_get() that much
> time really passed by.

As the NMI dump only happens because of the time jump, which as you
said, is -rt only, I wouldn't say that the NMI deadlock is a mainline
bug.

-- Steve




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-30 20:21    [W:0.296 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site