On 09/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The patches do not depend on each other.
Yes,
> 1/2 is the trivial fix, imo -stable material. The bug is very old it seems,
> but today this race (leading to unbalanced unlock) manifests itself via
> mysterious BUG_ON's in rcu/sync.c.
Yes. Al,
On 09/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The patches do not depend on each other.
Yes,
> 1/2 is the trivial fix, imo -stable material. The bug is very old it seems,
> but today this race (leading to unbalanced unlock) manifests itself via
> mysterious BUG_ON's in rcu/sync.c.
Yes. Al,
Hello,
The patches do not depend on each other.
1/2 is the trivial fix, imo -stable material. The bug is very old it seems,
but today this race (leading to unbalanced unlock) manifests itself via
mysterious BUG_ON's in rcu/sync.c.
2/2 is old, I forgot to send it before. It was already reviewed
Hello,
The patches do not depend on each other.
1/2 is the trivial fix, imo -stable material. The bug is very old it seems,
but today this race (leading to unbalanced unlock) manifests itself via
mysterious BUG_ON's in rcu/sync.c.
2/2 is old, I forgot to send it before. It was already reviewed
On 09/23, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> > --- a/fs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/super.c
> > @@ -1344,7 +1344,9 @@ int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
> > int error;
> >
> > down_write(>s_umount);
> > - if (sb->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN) {
> > + if (sb->s_writers.frozen !=
On 09/23, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> > --- a/fs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/super.c
> > @@ -1344,7 +1344,9 @@ int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
> > int error;
> >
> > down_write(>s_umount);
> > - if (sb->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN) {
> > + if (sb->s_writers.frozen !=
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/14, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>> [ 557.006656] [] dump_stack+0x6b/0xa0
>> [ 557.012737] [] warn_slowpath_common+0x95/0xe0
>> [ 557.019781] [] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
>> [ 557.026645] []
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/14, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>> [ 557.006656] [] dump_stack+0x6b/0xa0
>> [ 557.012737] [] warn_slowpath_common+0x95/0xe0
>> [ 557.019781] [] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
>> [ 557.026645] [] rcu_sync_enter+0x148/0x1a0
>> [
On 09/14, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> [ 557.006656] [] dump_stack+0x6b/0xa0
> [ 557.012737] [] warn_slowpath_common+0x95/0xe0
> [ 557.019781] [] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> [ 557.026645] [] rcu_sync_enter+0x148/0x1a0
> [ 557.033309] [] percpu_down_write+0x1e/0xf0
> [ 557.040074] [] ?
On 09/14, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> [ 557.006656] [] dump_stack+0x6b/0xa0
> [ 557.012737] [] warn_slowpath_common+0x95/0xe0
> [ 557.019781] [] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> [ 557.026645] [] rcu_sync_enter+0x148/0x1a0
> [ 557.033309] [] percpu_down_write+0x1e/0xf0
> [ 557.040074] [] ?
On 09/13/2016 06:20 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/13, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>> On 09/13/2016 05:35 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at
On 09/13/2016 06:20 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/13, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>> On 09/13/2016 05:35 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at
On 09/13/2016 05:38 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 09/13/2016 05:35 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw
code,
>>>
>>>
On 09/13/2016 05:38 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 09/13/2016 05:35 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw
code,
>>>
>>>
On 09/13, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> On 09/13/2016 05:35 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >
> > On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw
> >>> code,
> >>
> >> Heh, yes, it
On 09/13, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> On 09/13/2016 05:35 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >
> > On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw
> >>> code,
> >>
> >> Heh, yes, it
On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw
>> code,
>
> Heh, yes, it looks racy or I am totally confused.
>
>> could test the debugging patch below meanwhile?
>
> Yes please.
On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw
>> code,
>
> Heh, yes, it looks racy or I am totally confused.
>
>> could test the debugging patch below meanwhile?
>
> Yes please.
On 09/13/2016 05:35 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>
>>> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw
>>> code,
>>
>> Heh, yes, it looks racy or I am totally confused.
>>
>>> could
On 09/13/2016 05:35 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 09/13/2016 04:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>
>>> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw
>>> code,
>>
>> Heh, yes, it looks racy or I am totally confused.
>>
>>> could
On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw code,
Heh, yes, it looks racy or I am totally confused.
> could test the debugging patch below meanwhile?
Yes please. I'll send you another patch (hopefully fix) later, but it
would be
On 09/13, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> OK... perhaps the unbalanced up_write... I'll try to look at freeze/thaw code,
Heh, yes, it looks racy or I am totally confused.
> could test the debugging patch below meanwhile?
Yes please. I'll send you another patch (hopefully fix) later, but it
would be
On 09/13, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> I just re-run the test with kernel 4.4.14 and PROVE_RCU and DEBUG_RCU_OBJECTS
> enabled and here is what I got:
Thanks again!
Damn. This reminds me that I forgot to send the patch which reworks rcu/sync.c.
Will do this week. But we need to investigate
On 09/13, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> I just re-run the test with kernel 4.4.14 and PROVE_RCU and DEBUG_RCU_OBJECTS
> enabled and here is what I got:
Thanks again!
Damn. This reminds me that I forgot to send the patch which reworks rcu/sync.c.
Will do this week. But we need to investigate
On 09/12/2016 04:01 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Nikolay,
>
[SNIP..]
>>
>>
>> The bug on in question is this: BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
>>
>> Have you seen something like that before - the kernel is fairly old 4.4.2,
>
> No... thanks, I'll try to look tomorrow.
I just re-run the
On 09/12/2016 04:01 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hi Nikolay,
>
[SNIP..]
>>
>>
>> The bug on in question is this: BUG_ON(rsp->gp_state != GP_PASSED);
>>
>> Have you seen something like that before - the kernel is fairly old 4.4.2,
>
> No... thanks, I'll try to look tomorrow.
I just re-run the
Hi Nikolay,
On 09/12, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> [ 2213.610208] [ cut here ]
> [ 2213.614243] kernel BUG at kernel/rcu/sync.c:152!
> [ 2213.618270] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
> [ 2213.696629] CPU: 5 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/5 Not tainted 4.4.2-clouder2 #1
> [ 2213.702891]
Hi Nikolay,
On 09/12, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
> [ 2213.610208] [ cut here ]
> [ 2213.614243] kernel BUG at kernel/rcu/sync.c:152!
> [ 2213.618270] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
> [ 2213.696629] CPU: 5 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/5 Not tainted 4.4.2-clouder2 #1
> [ 2213.702891]
28 matches
Mail list logo