lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 3.19-rc3
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 11:18:04AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:57:19AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >> [ 88.028739] [<ffffffff8124433f>] aio_read_events+0x4f/0x2d0
> >>
> >
> > Ah, that one. Chris Mason and Kent Overstreet were looking at that one.
> > I'm not touching the AIO code either ;-)
>
> I know, I was so excited when I see nearly the same output.
>
> Can you tell me why people see "similiar" problems in different areas?

Because the debug check is new :-) It's a pattern that should not be
used but mostly works most of the times.

> [ 181.397024] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2872 at kernel/sched/core.c:7303
> __might_sleep+0xbd/0xd0()
> [ 181.397028] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1
> set at [<ffffffff810b83bd>] prepare_to_wait_event+0x5d/0x110
>
> With similiar buzzwords... namely...
>
> mutex_lock_nested
> prepare_to_wait(_event)
> __might_sleep
>
> I am asking myself... Where is the real root cause - in sched/core?
> Fix one single place VS. fix the impact at several other places?

No, the root cause is nesting sleep primitives, this is not fixable in
the one place, both prepare_to_wait and mutex_lock are using
task_struct::state, they have to, no way around it.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-06 12:41    [W:0.918 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site