On Wednesday, July 08, 2015 09:36:14 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 02:50:25AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Something seems to have changed in RCU in 4.2-rc1, as it is now complaining
> > about a tracepoint in tick_freeze() like this:
> >
> > [ 66.340508] ===============================
> > [ 66.340509] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> > [ 66.340512] 4.2.0-rc1+ #1691 Not tainted
> > [ 66.340513] -------------------------------
> > [ 66.340515]
> > /scratch/rafael/work/linux-pm/include/trace/events/power.h:193 suspicious
> > rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> > [ 66.340517]
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> > [ 66.340519]
> > RCU used illegally from idle CPU!
> > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> > [ 66.340520] RCU used illegally from extended quiescent state!
> > [ 66.340522] 1 lock held by swapper/0/0:
> > [ 66.340538] #0: (tick_freeze_lock){......}, at: [<ffffffff810dcb39>]
> > tick_freeze+0x19/0x230
> > [ 66.340539]
> > stack backtrace:
> > [ 66.340543] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.2.0-rc1+ #1691
> > [ 66.340544] Hardware name: TOSHIBA PORTEGE R500/Portable PC, BIOS
> > Version 1.60 03/04/2008
> > [ 66.340550] 0000000000000001 ffffffff81c03e48 ffffffff817ab99d
> > 0000000000000004
> > [ 66.340555] ffffffff81c10500 ffffffff81c03e78 ffffffff810a2dd7
> > 0000000000000003
> > [ 66.340560] 0000000000000000 ffffffff81a6b2c7 ffffffffa00b3090
> > ffffffff81c03ea8
> > [ 66.340561] Call Trace:
> > [ 66.340567] [<ffffffff817ab99d>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x7b
> > [ 66.340573] [<ffffffff810a2dd7>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
> > [ 66.340577] [<ffffffff810dcca8>] tick_freeze+0x188/0x230
> > [ 66.340582] [<ffffffff816357a0>] cpuidle_enter_freeze+0x30/0x80
> > [ 66.340586] [<ffffffff8109a495>] cpu_startup_entry+0x455/0x490
> > [ 66.340591] [<ffffffff8179e882>] rest_init+0x132/0x140
> > [ 66.340595] [<ffffffff8179e750>] ? csum_partial_copy_generic+0x170/0x170
> > [ 66.340601] [<ffffffff81d14049>] start_kernel+0x484/0x491
> > [ 66.340604] [<ffffffff81d139aa>] ? set_init_arg+0x58/0x58
> > [ 66.340608] [<ffffffff81d135ad>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
> > [ 66.340611] [<ffffffff81d13696>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xe7/0xeb
> >
> > It didn't complained about it before, AFAICS, but in any case the simplest
> > way to deal with it seems to be to put tick_freeze() under RCU_NONIDLE()
> > like in the patch below.
>
> The above warning won't show up unless you have lockdep enabled, so
> maybe that is what changed? (Recent RCU changes could expose additional
> uses of RCU from offline CPUs, but shouldn't be any change from idle
> CPUs. Famous last words!)
>
> > I wonder what you think about it?
>
> Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
OK, thanks!
I'm applying the patch, then.
Rafael
--
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/
