On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Meyer <tho...@m3y3r.de> wrote: > Am Montag, den 09.11.2015, 15:03 +0000 schrieb Anton Ivanov: >> It throws a couple of harmless "epoll del fd" warnings on reboot >> which >> result the fact that disable_fd/enable_fd are not removed in the >> terminal/line code. >> >> These are harmless and will go away once the term/line code gets >> support >> for real write IRQs in addition to read at some point in the future. >> >> I have fixed the file descriptor leak in the reboot case. > > Hi, > > now with the list on copy! > > Richard: can you make some sense out of these stack traces? I can > provide the config if you want! > > I see a lot of bugs of type "BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0" with > this patch: > > I did look over your patch and found two errors in the irq_lock > spinlock handling: > > http://m3y3r.dyndns.org:9100/gerrit/#/c/2/1..2/arch/um/kernel/irq.c > > But it still seems to miss something as above bugs still occurs, but > now the system boots up a bit more at least. > > Example: > [ 225.570000] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, chmod/516 > [ 225.570000] lock: irq_lock+0x0/0x18, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
Hmmm, UML is UP and does not support PREEMPT, so all spinlocks should be a no-op. Do you have lock debugging enabled? I this case I'd start gdb and inspect the memory. Maybe a stack corruption. -- Thanks, //richard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
