Hi Neil On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:29:55PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Thu, 21 Apr 2022, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Apr 2022 at 14:09, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 at 18:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.238 release. > > > > There are 338 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > > > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > > > > let me know. > > > > > > > > Responses should be made by Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:07:54 +0000. > > > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > > > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > > > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.238-rc1.gz > > > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y > > > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > Following kernel warning noticed on arm64 Juno-r2 while booting > > > stable-rc 4.19.238. Here is the full test log link [1]. > > > > > > [ 0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000100 [0x410fd033] > > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 4.19.238 (tuxmake@tuxmake) (gcc version > > > 11.2.0 (Debian 11.2.0-18)) #1 SMP PREEMPT @1650206156 > > > [ 0.000000] Machine model: ARM Juno development board (r2) > > > <trim> > > > [ 18.499895] ================================ > > > [ 18.504172] WARNING: inconsistent lock state > > > [ 18.508451] 4.19.238 #1 Not tainted > > > [ 18.511944] -------------------------------- > > > [ 18.516222] inconsistent {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} -> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} usage. > > > [ 18.522242] kworker/u12:3/60 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes: > > > [ 18.527826] (____ptrval____) > > > (&(&xprt->transport_lock)->rlock){+.?.}, at: xprt_destroy+0x70/0xe0 > > > [ 18.536648] {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} state was registered at: > > > [ 18.541543] lock_acquire+0xc8/0x23c > > Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and > spin_unlock_bh(). > We get the same deadlock or similar one and we think that can be connected to this thread on 4.19.243. For us is a bit difficult to hit but we are going to apply this change net: sunrpc: Fix deadlock in xprt_destroy Prior to Linux 5.3, ->transport_lock needs spin_lock_bh() and spin_unlock_bh(). Signed-off-by: Michael Trimarchi <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c index d05fa7c36d00..b1abf4848bbc 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c @@ -1550,9 +1550,9 @@ static void xprt_destroy(struct rpc_xprt *xprt) * is cleared. We use ->transport_lock to ensure the mod_timer() * can only run *before* del_time_sync(), never after. */ - spin_lock(&xprt->transport_lock); + spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock); del_timer_sync(&xprt->timer); - spin_unlock(&xprt->transport_lock); + spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock); /* * Destroy sockets etc from the system workqueue so they can -- 2.37.2 > Thanks, > NeilBrown > Thank you
