On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 9:10 AM Baokun Li <libaokun1@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2023/9/17 17:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 02:55:47PM +0800, Baokun Li wrote: > >> On 2023/9/13 16:59, Yi Zhang wrote: > >>> The issue still can be reproduced on the latest linux tree[2]. > >>> To reproduce I need to run about 1000 times blktests block/001, and > >>> bisect shows it was introduced with commit[1], as it was not 100% > >>> reproduced, not sure if it's the culprit? > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] 9257959a6e5b locking/atomic: scripts: restructure fallback ifdeffery > >> Hello, everyone！ > >> > >> We have confirmed that the merge-in of this patch caused hlist_bl_lock > >> (aka, bit_spin_lock) to fail, which in turn triggered the issue above. > >> [root@localhost ~]# insmod mymod.ko > >> [ 37.994787][ T621] >>> a = 725, b = 724 > >> [ 37.995313][ T621] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > >> [ 37.995951][ T621] kernel BUG at fs/mymod/mymod.c:42! > >> [r[ oo 3t7@.l996o4c61al]h[o s T6t21] ~ ]#Int ernal error: Oops - BUG: > >> 00000000f2000800 [#1] SMP > >> [ 37.997420][ T621] Modules linked in: mymod(E) > >> [ 37.997891][ T621] CPU: 9 PID: 621 Comm: bl_lock_thread2 Tainted: > >> G E 6.4.0-rc2-00034-g9257959a6e5b-dirty #117 > >> [ 37.999038][ T621] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) > >> [ 37.999571][ T621] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS > >> BTYPE=--) > >> [ 38.000344][ T621] pc : increase_ab+0xcc/0xe70 [mymod] > >> [ 38.000882][ T621] lr : increase_ab+0xcc/0xe70 [mymod] > >> [ 38.001416][ T621] sp : ffff800008b4be40 > >> [ 38.001822][ T621] x29: ffff800008b4be40 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: > >> 0000000000000000 > >> [ 38.002605][ T621] x26: 0000000000000000 x25: 0000000000000000 x24: > >> 0000000000000000 > >> [ 38.003385][ T621] x23: ffffd9930c698190 x22: ffff800008a0ba38 x21: > >> 0000000000000001 > >> [ 38.004174][ T621] x20: ffffffffffffefff x19: ffffd9930c69a580 x18: > >> 0000000000000000 > >> [ 38.004955][ T621] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: ffffd9933011bd38 x15: > >> ffffffffffffffff > >> [ 38.005754][ T621] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 205d313236542020 x12: > >> ffffd99332175b80 > >> [ 38.006538][ T621] x11: 0000000000000003 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : > >> ffffd9933022a9d8 > >> [ 38.007325][ T621] x8 : 00000000000bffe8 x7 : c0000000ffff7fff x6 : > >> ffffd993320b5b40 > >> [ 38.008124][ T621] x5 : ffff0001f7d1c708 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : > >> 0000000000000000 > >> [ 38.008912][ T621] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : > >> 0000000000000015 > >> [ 38.009709][ T621] Call trace: > >> [ 38.010035][ T621] increase_ab+0xcc/0xe70 [mymod] > >> [ 38.010539][ T621] kthread+0xdc/0xf0 > >> [ 38.010927][ T621] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 > >> [ 38.011370][ T621] Code: 17ffffe0 90000020 91044000 9400000d (d4210000) > >> [ 38.012067][ T621] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > > Is this arm64 or something? You seem to have forgotten to mention what > > platform you're using. > > > Sorry for the late reply. > We tested both x86 and arm64, and the problem is only encountered under > arm64. Yeah, my reproduced environment is also aarch64. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Baokun Li > . > -- Best Regards, Yi Zhang
