On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 06:46:21AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Huh. The WARN does not always generate the lockdep complaint. But > fair enough.
Any printk()/WARN/BUG with rq lock held ought to generate that splat, sometimes we die before we splat. The printk rewrite should eventually fix that. > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected] > > Thomas pointed me at this one a couple of weeks ago. Here is an > additional fix for rcutorture: f67e04bb0695 ("torture: Break affinity > of kthreads last running on outgoing CPU"). I am still getting WARNs > and lockdep splats with both applied. That patch looks racy, what avoids the task being shuffled right back before the CPU goes offline? > What would break if I made the code dump out a few entries in the > runqueue if the warning triggered? There was a patch around that did that, Valentin might remember where that was.
