On 02-11-15, 11:14, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/31, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > I don't know what is wrong (or right) with my exynos 5250 board, but I
> > didn't got any splat here even with the right config options (yes I
> > should have mentioned that earlier). I have seen this at other times
> > as well, while we were running after some cpufreq traces..
> >
> > But, the case in hand is pretty straight forward and Mike T. did get a
> > splat as that's what he told me. We are calling a sleep-able function
> > from rcu_lock and that's obviously wrong.
>
> That's slightly concerning. Given that the bug is so straight
> forward but we can't reproduce it doesn't instill a lot of
> confidence that the patch is correct.
Good that I spent some time debugging why I wasn't able to hit the
lockdep. And that's because by default CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU was
selected on exynos and so the dummy function was getting enabled, and
so no WARN.
#if defined(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) && !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void)
{
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map),
"Illegal context switch in RCU read-side critical
section");
}
#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void)
{
}
#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
Whereas for omap, that's not the case :)
So, with some config changes, I was able to hit the lockdep :)
And just to confirm, they got fixed by the $Subject patch :)
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
