On 2013-01-03 16:28, Ed Cashin wrote: > On Jan 3, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 2013-01-03 15:09, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 2013-01-03 15:02, Ed Cashin wrote: >>>> On Jan 3, 2013, at 8:25 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> We have a user that has reported an oops when removing the aoe module. >>>>> This seems to have been happening since the 3.4 kernel, as you can see >>>>> in this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853064 >>>>> >>>>> The recreate steps and oops output from a 3.6.11 kernel is below. Any >>>>> thoughts on what could be causing this? >>>>> >>>>> josh >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I run the following commands sequentially >>>>> >>>>> - modprobe aoe >>>>> - dmesg: >>>>> [699170.611997] aoe: AoE v47 initialised. >>>>> [699170.653980] aoe: e4.1: setting 8192 byte data frames on >>>>> eth1:000423d36ac3 >>>>> [699170.654106] aoe: e6.0: setting 8192 byte data frames on >>>>> eth1:000423d36ac3 >>>>> [699170.654961] aoe: e6.2: setting 8192 byte data frames on >>>>> eth1:000423d36ac3 >>>>> [699170.654961] aoe: e6.3: setting 8192 byte data frames on >>>>> eth1:000423d36ac3 >>>>> [699170.654961] aoe: e8.1: setting 8192 byte data frames on >>>>> eth1:000423d36ac3 >>>>> [699170.654961] aoe: e8.2: setting 8192 byte data frames on >>>>> eth1:000423d36ac3 >>>>> [699170.654961] aoe: e8.10: setting 8192 byte data frames on >>>>> eth1:000423d36ac3 >>>>> [699170.654961] aoe: e8.11: setting 8192 byte data frames on >>>>> eth1:000423d36ac3 >>>>> [699170.654961] aoe: 000423d36ac3 e4.1 v0100 has 33554432 sectors >>>>> [699170.654961] aoe: 000423d36ac3 e6.0 v0100 has 12582912 sectors >>>>> [699170.654961] aoe: 000423d36ac3 e6.2 v0100 has 16777216 sectors >>>>> [699170.702143] aoe: 000423d36ac3 e6.3 v0100 has 104857600 sectors >>>>> [699170.706391] aoe: 000423d36ac3 e8.1 v0100 has 272629760 sectors >>>>> [699170.710623] aoe: 000423d36ac3 e8.2 v0100 has 67108864 sectors >>>>> [699170.714851] aoe: 000423d36ac3 e8.10 v0100 has 33554432 sectors >>>>> [699170.719056] aoe: 000423d36ac3 e8.11 v0100 has 67108864 sectors >>>>> [699170.824774] etherd/e4.1: p1 >>>>> [699170.829069] etherd/e6.0: p1 p2 >>>>> [699170.833274] etherd/e8.1: p1 p2 >>>>> [699170.837329] etherd/e8.2: p1 >>>>> [699170.841204] etherd/e8.10: p1 >>>>> [699170.845030] etherd/e8.11: p1 >>>>> [699170.848706] etherd/e6.3: unknown partition table >>>>> [699170.852384] etherd/e6.2: unknown partition table >>>>> >>>>> - lsmod |grep aoe >>>>> aoe 32214 0 >>>>> >>>>> - modprobe -vr aoe >>>>> - dmesg: >>>>> [699231.304689] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >>>>> [699231.308319] WARNING: at lib/list_debug.c:62 >>>>> __list_del_entry+0x82/0xd0() >>>>> [699231.312031] Hardware name: S5000VSA >>>>> [699231.315658] list_del corruption. next->prev should be >>>>> ffff880009fa37e8, but was ffffffff81c79c00 >>>>> [699231.319352] Modules linked in: aoe(-) ip6table_filter ip6_tables >>>>> ebtable_nat ebtables lockd sunrpc bridge 8021q garp stp llc vfat fat >>>>> binfmt_misc iTCO_wdt iTCO_vendor_support vhost_net lpc_ich radeon tun >>>>> macvtap mfd_core serio_raw coretemp i2c_algo_bit ttm i5000_edac macvlan >>>>> drm_kms_helper e1000e edac_core microcode i5k_amb shpchp i2c_i801 drm >>>>> kvm_intel i2c_core kvm ioatdma dca raid1 >>>>> [699231.336259] Pid: 8584, comm: modprobe Not tainted >>>>> 3.6.11-1.fc17.x86_64 #1 >>>>> [699231.340561] Call Trace: >>>>> [699231.344865] [<ffffffff8105c8ef>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0 >>>>> [699231.349212] [<ffffffff8105c9e6>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x50 >>>>> [699231.353595] [<ffffffff812eee52>] __list_del_entry+0x82/0xd0 >>>>> [699231.357954] [<ffffffff812eeeb1>] list_del+0x11/0x40 >>>>> [699231.362319] [<ffffffff812f6458>] percpu_counter_destroy+0x28/0x50 >>>>> [699231.366712] [<ffffffff8114c513>] bdi_destroy+0x43/0x140 >>>>> [699231.371127] [<ffffffff812be20c>] blk_release_queue+0x8c/0xc0 >>>>> [699231.375454] [<ffffffff812dc322>] kobject_cleanup+0x82/0x1b0 >>>>> [699231.379675] [<ffffffff812dc1ab>] kobject_put+0x2b/0x60 >>>>> [699231.383851] [<ffffffff812b80a5>] blk_put_queue+0x15/0x20 >>>>> [699231.387899] [<ffffffff812bc659>] blk_cleanup_queue+0xc9/0xe0 >>>>> [699231.391794] [<ffffffffa01f53f5>] aoedev_freedev+0x135/0x150 [aoe] >>>>> [699231.395668] [<ffffffffa01f59a5>] aoedev_exit+0x65/0x80 [aoe] >>>>> [699231.399493] [<ffffffffa01f5afe>] aoe_exit+0x2e/0x40 [aoe] >>>>> [699231.403273] [<ffffffff810bdefe>] sys_delete_module+0x16e/0x2d0 >>>>> [699231.407119] [<ffffffff8161db56>] ? __schedule+0x3c6/0x7a0 >>>>> [699231.411050] [<ffffffff8119054a>] ? sys_write+0x4a/0x90 >>>>> [699231.415033] [<ffffffff81627329>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b >>>>> [699231.419117] ---[ end trace 9e1558af1964b569 ]--- >>>>> [699231.423248] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >>>> >>>> Thanks for the report. The problem seems to be older than that (see >>>> 2.6.32 below), and it seems to be related to changes that first >>>> appeared in 2.6.24. I'm going to investigate the changes introduced >>>> in the commit below to see whether the aoe driver needed updating when >>>> they went in. I'm Cc-ing Peter Zijlstra in case this rings any bells. >>> >>> I highly doubt that has anything to do with it. Since it triggers >>> immediately on rmmod after modprobe (and not having set a device up, >>> presumably, being the key), it looks like a generic bug in aoeblk. >>> >>> Ed, can you reproduce the issue? >> >> Quick guess... >> >> >> diff --git a/drivers/block/aoe/aoedev.c b/drivers/block/aoe/aoedev.c >> index 98f2965..e4473af 100644 >> --- a/drivers/block/aoe/aoedev.c >> +++ b/drivers/block/aoe/aoedev.c >> @@ -280,8 +280,8 @@ freedev(struct aoedev *d) >> if (d->gd) { >> aoedisk_rm_sysfs(d); >> del_gendisk(d->gd); >> - put_disk(d->gd); >> blk_cleanup_queue(d->blkq); >> + put_disk(d->gd); >> } >> t = d->targets; >> e = t + d->ntargets; > > Yes, I can reproduce it on 3.5.6. There are devices up, none down, > when I do rmmod. If no aoe devices are present, the warnings do not > appear.
OK, that's good at least. I can try here too. > The suggestion above to move put_disk after blk_cleanup_queue doesn't > affect the list_del warnings, but thanks for the quick guess---Is that > something we need to change regardless of the issue at hand? No should not matter. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/