Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I get a hang for "test_tag", but it's not directly related to your >> series, but rather "remote fence.i". > > I was seeing some stalls like this even without my series but couldn't > debug them at that time. Yeah, I think it's not related to your series -- it's just a good reproducer. ;-) >> >> | rcu: INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks: >> | rcu: 0-....: (1400 ticks this GP) idle=d5e4/1/0x4000000000000000 softirq=5542/5542 fqs=1862 >> | rcu: (detected by 1, t=5252 jiffies, g=10253, q=195 ncpus=4) >> | Task dump for CPU 0: >> | task:kworker/0:5 state:R running task stack:0 pid:319 ppid:2 flags:0x00000008 >> | Workqueue: events bpf_prog_free_deferred >> | Call Trace: >> | [<ffffffff80cbc444>] __schedule+0x2d0/0x940 >> | watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 21s! [kworker/0:5:319] >> | Modules linked in: nls_iso8859_1 drm fuse i2c_core drm_panel_orientation_quirks backlight dm_mod configfs ip_tables x_tables >> | CPU: 0 PID: 319 Comm: kworker/0:5 Not tainted 6.5.0-rc5 #1 >> | Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT) >> | Workqueue: events bpf_prog_free_deferred >> | epc : __sbi_rfence_v02_call.isra.0+0x74/0x11a >> | ra : __sbi_rfence_v02+0xda/0x1a4 >> | epc : ffffffff8000ab4c ra : ffffffff8000accc sp : ff20000001c9bbd0 >> | gp : ffffffff82078c48 tp : ff600000888e6a40 t0 : ff20000001c9bd44 >> | t1 : 0000000000000000 t2 : 0000000000000040 s0 : ff20000001c9bbf0 >> | s1 : 0000000000000010 a0 : 0000000000000000 a1 : 0000000000000000 >> | a2 : 0000000000000000 a3 : 0000000000000000 a4 : 0000000000000000 >> | a5 : 0000000000000000 a6 : 0000000000000000 a7 : 0000000052464e43 >> | s2 : 000000000000ffff s3 : 00000000ffffffff s4 : ffffffff81667528 >> | s5 : 0000000000000000 s6 : 0000000000000000 s7 : 0000000000000000 >> | s8 : 0000000000000001 s9 : 0000000000000003 s10: 0000000000000040 >> | s11: ffffffff8207d240 t3 : 000000000000000f t4 : 000000000000002a >> | t5 : ff600000872df140 t6 : ffffffff81e26828 >> | status: 0000000200000120 badaddr: 0000000000000000 cause: 8000000000000005 >> | [<ffffffff8000ab4c>] __sbi_rfence_v02_call.isra.0+0x74/0x11a >> | [<ffffffff8000accc>] __sbi_rfence_v02+0xda/0x1a4 >> | [<ffffffff8000a886>] sbi_remote_fence_i+0x1e/0x26 >> | [<ffffffff8000cee2>] flush_icache_all+0x1a/0x48 >> | [<ffffffff80007736>] patch_text_nosync+0x6c/0x8c >> | [<ffffffff8000f0f8>] bpf_arch_text_invalidate+0x62/0xac >> | [<ffffffff8016c538>] bpf_prog_pack_free+0x9c/0x1b2 >> | [<ffffffff8016c84a>] bpf_jit_binary_pack_free+0x20/0x4a >> | [<ffffffff8000f198>] bpf_jit_free+0x56/0x9e >> | [<ffffffff8016b43a>] bpf_prog_free_deferred+0x15a/0x182 >> | [<ffffffff800576c4>] process_one_work+0x1b6/0x3d6 >> | [<ffffffff80057d52>] worker_thread+0x84/0x378 >> | [<ffffffff8005fc2c>] kthread+0xe8/0x108 >> | [<ffffffff80003ffa>] ret_from_fork+0xe/0x20 >> >> I'm digging into that now, and I would appreciate if you could run the >> test_tag on VF2 or similar (I'm missing that HW). > > Sure, I will try to run this on the board. > I will rebase my series(+ the patch from arm64 series) on the latest > bpf-next tree and try to run it. Thank you! > Let me know if I need to add: > + select HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS if MMU && 64BIT I usually run with that *on*, for better coverage. Björn
