On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 03:10:04PM -0700, Philipp Schrader wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:35:23 +0200 (CEST)
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Philipp Schrader wrote:
>
> >> > rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> >> > [ 0.055093]
> >> > [ 0.055093] other info that might help us debug this:
> >> > [ 0.055093]
> >> > [ 0.055097]
> >> > [ 0.055097] RCU used illegally from idle CPU!
> >> > [ 0.055097] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> >> > [ 0.055100] RCU used illegally from extended quiescent state!
> >> > [ 0.055104] no locks held by swapper/0/0.
> >> > [ 0.055106]
> >> > [ 0.055106] stack backtrace:
> >> > [ 0.055112] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.1.6+ #2
> >> > [ 0.055116] Hardware name: Generic DRA74X (Flattened Device Tree)
> >> > [ 0.055130] [<c00196b8>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c001515c>]
> >> > (show_stack+0x20/0x24)
> >> > [ 0.055146] [<c001515c>] (show_stack) from [<c07bc408>]
> >> > (dump_stack+0x84/0xa0)
> >> > [ 0.055160] [<c07bc408>] (dump_stack) from [<c009bc38>]
> >> > (lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xb0/0x110)
> >> > [ 0.055172] [<c009bc38>] (lockdep_rcu_suspicious) from [<c01246c4>]
> >> > (time_hardirqs_off+0x2b8/0x3c8)
> >> > [ 0.055184] [<c01246c4>] (time_hardirqs_off) from [<c009a218>]
> >> > (trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x2c/0xf4)
> >> > [ 0.055194] [<c009a218>] (trace_hardirqs_off_caller) from
> >> > [<c009a2f4>] (trace_hardirqs_off+0x14/0x18)
> >> > [ 0.055204] [<c009a2f4>] (trace_hardirqs_off) from [<c00c7ecc>]
> >> > (rcu_idle_enter+0x78/0xcc)
> >> > [ 0.055213] [<c00c7ecc>] (rcu_idle_enter) from [<c0093eb0>]
> >> > (cpu_startup_entry+0x190/0x518)
> >> > [ 0.055222] [<c0093eb0>] (cpu_startup_entry) from [<c07b95b4>]
> >> > (rest_init+0x13c/0x17c)
> >> > [ 0.055231] [<c07b95b4>] (rest_init) from [<c0b32c74>]
> >> > (start_kernel+0x320/0x380)
> >> > [ 0.055238] [<c0b32c74>] (start_kernel) from [<8000807c>] (0x8000807c)
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure how to debug this; I'm still reading up on RCUs. Pretty
> >> > nifty ideas.
> >> >
> >> > Looking at include/trace/events/hist.h it appears line 31 is the end
> >> > of a TRACE_EVENT macro usage.
> >> > Does that mean the macro is using RCU improperly somehow?
> >
> > I think this needs to be a trace_*_rcu_idle() call. That is, I bet the
> > tracepoint was triggered when rcu wasn't watching.
>
> Thank you for your reply Steve.
> I've got the following patch now that makes the splat disappear:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c b/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
> index aaade2e..d0e1d0e 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
> @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(stop_critical_timings);
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> void time_hardirqs_on(unsigned long a0, unsigned long a1)
> {
> - trace_preemptirqsoff_hist(IRQS_ON, 0);
> + trace_preemptirqsoff_hist_rcuidle(IRQS_ON, 0);
> if (!preempt_trace() && irq_trace())
> stop_critical_timing(a0, a1);
> }
> @@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ void time_hardirqs_off(unsigned long a0, unsigned long a1)
> {
> if (!preempt_trace() && irq_trace())
> start_critical_timing(a0, a1);
> - trace_preemptirqsoff_hist(IRQS_OFF, 1);
> + trace_preemptirqsoff_hist_rcuidle(IRQS_OFF, 1);
> }
>
> #else /* !CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
>
> Does that look reasonable?
> Or could this cause a problem down the road?
Looks good to me!
> Still reading up on RCUs and how they work.
Me too. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
