* Arne Jansen <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>With the all-locks-printed output we can double check what locks are > >>>held. > > btw, the output posted earlier also contains some BUG: spinlock > lockup. hm, it's hard to interpret that without the spin_lock()/unlock() logic keeping the dumps apart. Was lockdep enabled as you started the test? but ... if the lock is reasonably sorted then it's this one: <0>BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#3, modprobe/22211, ffffffff81e1c0c0 Pid: 22211, comm: modprobe Tainted: G W 2.6.39-rc3+ #19 Call Trace: [<ffffffff813af306>] do_raw_spin_lock+0x156/0x170 [<ffffffff8185ce71>] _raw_spin_lock+0x51/0x70 [<ffffffff81092df6>] ? vprintk+0x76/0x4a0 [<ffffffff81092df6>] vprintk+0x76/0x4a0 [<ffffffff810c5f8d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0x10 [<ffffffff81859e19>] printk+0x63/0x65 [<ffffffff813af301>] do_raw_spin_lock+0x151/0x170 [<ffffffff8108a4bd>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x29d/0x350 [<ffffffff8185ce71>] _raw_spin_lock+0x51/0x70 [<ffffffff81092df6>] ? vprintk+0x76/0x4a0 [<ffffffff81092df6>] vprintk+0x76/0x4a0 [<ffffffff8108758b>] ? cpuacct_charge+0x9b/0xb0 [<ffffffff8108750f>] ? cpuacct_charge+0x1f/0xb0 [<ffffffff8108a4bd>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x29d/0x350 [<ffffffff81859e19>] printk+0x63/0x65 [<ffffffff813af090>] spin_bug+0x70/0xf0 [<ffffffff813af2d9>] do_raw_spin_lock+0x129/0x170 [<ffffffff8108a4bd>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x29d/0x350 [<ffffffff8185ce71>] _raw_spin_lock+0x51/0x70 [<ffffffff81092df6>] ? vprintk+0x76/0x4a0 and it occured before the lockup in the scheduler. Which could be due to a race between disabling lockdep on one CPU and the scheduler doing the lock-held check on another CPU. Do you get any messages after the assert is removed, during the test? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|