On 12/28/2014 03:17 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> That is, what race condition specifically creates the
>> > 'lock->owner == current' situation in the debug check?
> Why do you suspect a race as opposed to a legitimate recursion issue?
> Although after staring at the code for a while, I cannot see
On 12/28/2014 03:17 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-12-27 at 10:52 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > There's a chance that lock->owner would change, but how would you explain
>> > it changing to 'current'?
> So yeah, the above only deals with the weird printk values, not the
> actual issue
On 12/28/2014 03:17 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Sat, 2014-12-27 at 10:52 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
There's a chance that lock-owner would change, but how would you explain
it changing to 'current'?
So yeah, the above only deals with the weird printk values, not the
actual issue that
On 12/28/2014 03:17 PM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
That is, what race condition specifically creates the
'lock-owner == current' situation in the debug check?
Why do you suspect a race as opposed to a legitimate recursion issue?
Although after staring at the code for a while, I cannot see foul
On Sat, 2014-12-27 at 10:52 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 12/27/2014 04:52 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >> Hello，
> >> > Does ACCESS_ONCE() can help this issue? I have no evidence that its lack
> >> > is
> >> > responsible for the issue, but I think here need it indeed. Is that
> >> > right?
>
On Sat, 2014-12-27 at 10:52 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 12/27/2014 04:52 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Hello，
Does ACCESS_ONCE() can help this issue? I have no evidence that its lack
is
responsible for the issue, but I think here need it indeed. Is that
right?
On 12/27/2014 04:52 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> Hello，
>> > Does ACCESS_ONCE() can help this issue? I have no evidence that its lack is
>> > responsible for the issue, but I think here need it indeed. Is that right?
>> >
>> > SPIN_BUG_ON(ACCESS_ONCE(lock->owner) == current, "recursion");
> Hmm
On Fri, 2014-12-26 at 14:45 +0800, Li Bin wrote:
> On 2014/7/8 4:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> I've also had this one, which looks similar:
> >>
> >> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
> >>
On 2014/12/26 15:01, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 12/26/2014 01:45 AM, Li Bin wrote:
>> On 2014/7/8 4:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> I've also had this one, which looks similar:
>>
>> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on
On 2014/12/26 15:01, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 12/26/2014 01:45 AM, Li Bin wrote:
On 2014/7/8 4:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
I've also had this one, which looks similar:
[10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
On Fri, 2014-12-26 at 14:45 +0800, Li Bin wrote:
On 2014/7/8 4:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
I've also had this one, which looks similar:
[10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
[10375.006573] lock:
On 12/27/2014 04:52 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Hello，
Does ACCESS_ONCE() can help this issue? I have no evidence that its lack is
responsible for the issue, but I think here need it indeed. Is that right?
SPIN_BUG_ON(ACCESS_ONCE(lock-owner) == current, recursion);
Hmm I guess on a
On 12/26/2014 01:45 AM, Li Bin wrote:
> On 2014/7/8 4:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> >> I've also had this one, which looks similar:
>>> >>
>>> >> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
>>> >> [10375.006573]
On 2014/7/8 4:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> I've also had this one, which looks similar:
>>
>> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
>> [10375.006573] lock: 0x8803a0fd7740, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
>>
On 2014/7/8 4:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
I've also had this one, which looks similar:
[10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
[10375.006573] lock: 0x8803a0fd7740, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
On 12/26/2014 01:45 AM, Li Bin wrote:
On 2014/7/8 4:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
I've also had this one, which looks similar:
[10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
[10375.006573] lock:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> I've also had this one, which looks similar:
>>
>> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
>> [10375.006573] lock: 0x8803a0fd7740, .magic: dead4ead,
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
I've also had this one, which looks similar:
[10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
[10375.006573] lock: 0x8803a0fd7740,
On 07/07/2014 06:47 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 04:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> >> I've also had this one, which looks similar:
>>> >>
>>> >> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
>>> >>
On 07/07/2014 06:47 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
On 07/07/2014 04:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
I've also had this one, which looks similar:
[10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
[10375.006573] lock:
On 07/07/2014 04:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> I've also had this one, which looks similar:
>>
>> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
>> [10375.006573] lock: 0x8803a0fd7740, .magic: dead4ead,
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> I've also had this one, which looks similar:
>
> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
> [10375.006573] lock: 0x8803a0fd7740, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
> modprobe/10965, .owner_cpu: 15
> [10375.007412]
On 07/07/2014 04:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 01:27:37PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
>> kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
>>
>> [10062.200152] BUG: spinlock recursion
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 01:27:37PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
> kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
>
> [10062.200152] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#11, trinity-c194/2414
> [10062.201897] lock:
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 01:27:37PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
[10062.200152] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#11, trinity-c194/2414
[10062.201897] lock:
On 07/07/2014 04:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 01:27:37PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
[10062.200152] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#11,
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
I've also had this one, which looks similar:
[10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
[10375.006573] lock: 0x8803a0fd7740, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
modprobe/10965, .owner_cpu: 15
[10375.007412] CPU: 0
On 07/07/2014 04:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
I've also had this one, which looks similar:
[10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965
[10375.006573] lock: 0x8803a0fd7740, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
[10062.200152] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#11, trinity-c194/2414
[10062.201897] lock: 0x88010cfd7740, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
trinity-c194/2414, .owner_cpu:
Hi all,
While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest running the latest -next
kernel I've stumbled on the following spew:
[10062.200152] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#11, trinity-c194/2414
[10062.201897] lock: 0x88010cfd7740, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
trinity-c194/2414, .owner_cpu:
30 matches
Mail list logo
