On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:21:01PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> [4300983.573000] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, sh/32089
> [4300983.573000] lock: f8f46418, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: sh/32089, .owner_cpu: 0
> [4300983.573000] [dump_stack+23/32] dump_stack+0x17/0x20
> [4300983.573000] [spin_bug+134/144] spin_bug+0x86/0x90
> [4300983.573000] [_raw_spin_lock+100/128] _raw_spin_lock+0x64/0x80
> [4300983.573000] [_spin_lock+9/16] _spin_lock+0x9/0x10
> [4300983.573000] [pg0+950630577/1068852224] task_free_notify+0x11/0x40 [oprofile]
> [4300983.573000] [notifier_call_chain+28/64] notifier_call_chain+0x1c/0x40
> [4300983.573000] [profile_handoff_task+30/64] profile_handoff_task+0x1e/0x40
> [4300983.575000] [__put_task_struct+99/272] __put_task_struct+0x63/0x110
> [4300983.575000] [__put_task_struct_cb+17/32] __put_task_struct_cb+0x11/0x20
> [4300983.575000] [rcu_do_batch+28/112] rcu_do_batch+0x1c/0x70
> [4300983.575000] [__rcu_process_callbacks+150/192] __rcu_process_callbacks+0x96/0xc0
> [4300983.575000] [rcu_process_callbacks+46/96] rcu_process_callbacks+0x2e/0x60
> [4300983.575000] [tasklet_action+113/208] tasklet_action+0x71/0xd0
> [4300983.575000] [__do_softirq+216/240] __do_softirq+0xd8/0xf0
> [4300983.575000] [do_softirq+56/64] do_softirq+0x38/0x40
> [4300983.575000] [irq_exit+58/64] irq_exit+0x3a/0x40
> [4300983.575000] [smp_apic_timer_interrupt+102/224] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x66/0xe0
> [4300983.575000] [apic_timer_interrupt+28/48] apic_timer_interrupt+0x1c/0x30
> [4300983.575000] [pg0+950632344/1068852224] mark_done+0x68/0x80 [oprofile]
> [4300983.576000] [pg0+950632568/1068852224] sync_buffer+0xc8/0x172 [oprofile]
> [4300983.576000] [pg0+950630643/1068852224] task_exit_notify+0x13/0x20 [oprofile]
> [4300983.576000] [notifier_call_chain+28/64] notifier_call_chain+0x1c/0x40
> [4300983.576000] [profile_task_exit+50/80] profile_task_exit+0x32/0x50
> [4300983.576000] [do_exit+26/1040] do_exit+0x1a/0x410
> [4300983.576000] [do_group_exit+51/176] do_group_exit+0x33/0xb0
> [4300983.576000] [sys_exit_group+17/32] sys_exit_group+0x11/0x20
> [4300983.576000] [syscall_call+7/11] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
Does the attached patch help? (Andrew asked me to look into this.)
The patch disables irq while holding the task_mortuary lock, thus
avoiding the self-recursion via RCU callbacks.
One concern on the attached patch is the possible effect on latency.
John, any reason why the dead_tasks list cannot be spliced onto a
local list, then freed outside of the task_mortuary lock? Any reason
why the dying_tasks list cannot be spliced onto the dead_tasks list
(an O(1) operation)?
Thanx, Paul
Signed-off-by: <[email protected]>
buffer_sync.c | 10 ++++++----
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.14-mm2/drivers/oprofile/buffer_sync.c linux-2.6.14-mm2-fixmortuary/drivers/oprofile/buffer_sync.c
--- linux-2.6.14-mm2/drivers/oprofile/buffer_sync.c 2005-10-27 17:02:08.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.14-mm2-fixmortuary/drivers/oprofile/buffer_sync.c 2005-11-25 13:10:46.000000000 -0800
@@ -46,10 +46,11 @@ static void process_task_mortuary(void);
*/
static int task_free_notify(struct notifier_block * self, unsigned long val, void * data)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
struct task_struct * task = data;
- spin_lock(&task_mortuary);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&task_mortuary, flags);
list_add(&task->tasks, &dying_tasks);
- spin_unlock(&task_mortuary);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task_mortuary, flags);
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
@@ -431,11 +432,12 @@ static void increment_tail(struct oprofi
*/
static void process_task_mortuary(void)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
struct list_head * pos;
struct list_head * pos2;
struct task_struct * task;
- spin_lock(&task_mortuary);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&task_mortuary, flags);
list_for_each_safe(pos, pos2, &dead_tasks) {
task = list_entry(pos, struct task_struct, tasks);
@@ -449,7 +451,7 @@ static void process_task_mortuary(void)
list_add_tail(&task->tasks, &dead_tasks);
}
- spin_unlock(&task_mortuary);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task_mortuary, flags);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
