Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1617302
| From | Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt |
| Date | 2017-04-05 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tsYMV-6Ky-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <tsVYJ-4Y7-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tsWi6-54x-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <tsXxw-63J-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <tsYjT-6ji-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tsYtA-6BL-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:08:10 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 02:54:25PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:59:25 -0700 > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > Note, this has nothing to do with trace_rcu_dyntick(). It's the > > > > function tracer tracing inside RCU, calling the stack tracer to record > > > > a new stack if it sees its larger than any stack before. All I need is > > > > a way to tell the stack tracer to not record a stack if it is in this > > > > RCU critical section. > > > > > > > > If you can add a "in_rcu_critical_section()" function, that the stack > > > > tracer can test, and simply exit out like it does if in_nmi() is set, > > > > that would work too. Below is my current work around. > > > > > > Except that the rcu_irq_enter() would already have triggered the bug > > > that was (allegedly) fixed by my earlier patch. So, yes, the check for > > > rcu_is_watching() would work around this bug, but the hope is that > > > with my earlier fix, this workaround would not be needed. > > > > Note, if I had a "in_rcu_critical_section()" I wouldn't need to call > > rcu_irq_enter(). I could fall out before that. My current workaround > > does the check, even though it breaks things, it would hopefully fix > > things as it calls rcu_irq_exit() immediately. > > OK, color me confused. What would "in_rcu_critical_section()" do? > > The rcu_is_watching() function tells you that RCU is not in an extended > quiescent state, though its return value can be iffy in the middle of > rcu_eqs_enter_common() -- which is why interrupts are disabled there. > In preemptible RCU, you can (but shouldn't) use rcu_preempt_depth() > to determine whether you are within an RCU read-side critical section, > which is what in_rcu_critical_section() sounds like to me, but I don't > see how this information would help in this situation. > > What am I missing here? > Would in_guts_of_internal_rcu_infrastructure_code() work? :-) Here's the crucial part of that stack dump again: save_stack_trace+0x1b/0x1d check_stack+0xec/0x24a stack_trace_call+0x40/0x53 0xffffffffa0026077 ? ftrace_graph_caller+0x78/0xa8 ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0xf ? rcu_eqs_enter_common.constprop.71+0x5/0x108 rcu_eqs_enter_common.constprop.71+0x5/0x108 rcu_idle_enter+0x51/0x72 The stack trace was called on rcu_eqs_enter_common() inside the rcu_idle_enter() function call. Perhaps if I just let rcu disable stack tracing? Something like this: diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 50fee76..f894fc3 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -853,8 +853,10 @@ void rcu_idle_enter(void) unsigned long flags; local_irq_save(flags); + disable_stack_tracer(); rcu_eqs_enter(false); rcu_sysidle_enter(0); + enable_stack_tracer(); local_irq_restore(flags); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_idle_enter); -- Steve
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-05 15:40 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-05 18:30 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-05 18:50 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-05 20:10 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-05 21:00 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-05 21:10 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-05 21:30 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-05 21:40 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-05 22:00 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-05 22:50 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-06 03:40 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-06 06:10 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-06 04:20 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-06 06:20 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2017-04-06 16:20 +0200
Re: [BUG] stack tracing causes: kernel/module.c:271 module_assert_mutex_or_preempt "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-04-06 17:10 +0200
csiph-web