Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:48:17 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context |
| |
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 08:33:06AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote: > >> On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] Call Trace: > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] lockdep_rcu_suspicious (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4259) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] atomic_notifier_call_chain (include/linux/rcupdate.h:892 kernel/notifier.c:182 kernel/notifier.c:193) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:192) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] notify_die (kernel/notifier.c:538) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:538) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? debug_smp_processor_id (lib/smp_processor_id.c:57) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] do_debug (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:652) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2609) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? do_int3 (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:610) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2554 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2601) > >>>>>> [ 543.999079] debug (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:1310) > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't know how to read this stack trace. Are we in do_int3, > >>>>> do_debug, or both? I didn't change do_debug at all. > >>>> > >>>> It looks like we're in do_debug. do_int3 is only on the stack but not > >>>> part of the current frame if I can trust the '?' ... > >>>> > >>> > >>> It's possible that an int3 happened and I did something wrong on > >>> return that caused a subsequent do_debug to screw up, but I don't see > >>> how my patch would have caused that. > >>> > >>> Were there any earlier log messages? > >> > >> Nope, nothing odd before or after. > > > > Trinity just survived for a decent amount of time for me with my > > patches, other than a bunch of apparently expected OOM kills. I have > > no idea how to tell trinity how much memory to use. > > A longer trinity run on a larger VM survived (still with some OOM > kills, but no taint) with these patches. I suspect that it's a > regression somewhere else in the RCU changes. I have > CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, so I should have seen the failure if it was there, > I think.
If by "RCU changes" you mean my changes to the RCU infrastructure, I am going to need more of a hint than I see in this thread thus far. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |