On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 11:18:04AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:57:19AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >> [ 88.028739] [<ffffffff8124433f>] aio_read_events+0x4f/0x2d0 > >> > > > > Ah, that one. Chris Mason and Kent Overstreet were looking at that one. > > I'm not touching the AIO code either ;-) > > I know, I was so excited when I see nearly the same output. > > Can you tell me why people see "similiar" problems in different areas?
Because the debug check is new :-) It's a pattern that should not be used but mostly works most of the times. > [ 181.397024] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2872 at kernel/sched/core.c:7303 > __might_sleep+0xbd/0xd0() > [ 181.397028] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 > set at [<ffffffff810b83bd>] prepare_to_wait_event+0x5d/0x110 > > With similiar buzzwords... namely... > > mutex_lock_nested > prepare_to_wait(_event) > __might_sleep > > I am asking myself... Where is the real root cause - in sched/core? > Fix one single place VS. fix the impact at several other places? No, the root cause is nesting sleep primitives, this is not fixable in the one place, both prepare_to_wait and mutex_lock are using task_struct::state, they have to, no way around it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
