On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 14:00:03 -0800 Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 15:20:26 -0500 > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 3.19-rc2 I'm getting: > > > > [ 426.715480] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 7920 at kernel/sched/core.c:7303 __might_sleep+0x92/0xa0() > > [ 426.715485] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set at [<ffffffff810ad99f>] prepare_to_wait+0x2f/0x90 > > ... > > [ 426.715613] [<ffffffff81094eb4>] groups_alloc+0x34/0x110 > > [ 426.715638] [<ffffffffa00181da>] svcauth_unix_accept+0x14a/0x280 [sunrpc] > > [ 426.715659] [<ffffffffa00170a8>] svc_authenticate+0xc8/0xe0 [sunrpc] > > [ 426.715683] [<ffffffffa0012cf2>] svc_process_common+0x202/0x6d0 [sunrpc] > > [ 426.715703] [<ffffffffa00135d8>] bc_svc_process+0x1c8/0x260 [sunrpc] > > [ 426.715725] [<ffffffffa01da8e0>] nfs41_callback_svc+0x100/0x1b0 [nfsv4] > > ... > > > > Looks like this is a new check added by 8eb23b9f35aa "sched: Debug > > nested sleeps". I don't *think* it's catching a real problem here, but > > maybe I'm missing some subtlety. I suppose nfs41_callback_svc() could > > move the finish_wait() so it's done before the bc_svc_process()? > > > > Yeah, the current code looks quite goofy. We really shouldn't be doing > all of the bc_svc_process stuff while in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. Doing what > you suggest looks like the right fix to me. > ...and while we're on the subject... Why is nfs41_callback_svc sleeping in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE anyway? Do we expect that kthread to receive signals? If not, perhaps we should go ahead and switch that over to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE instead? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
