On 07/07/2014 04:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:55:43AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >> I've also had this one, which looks similar: >> >> [10375.005884] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0, modprobe/10965 >> [10375.006573] lock: 0xffff8803a0fd7740, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: >> modprobe/10965, .owner_cpu: 15 [10375.007412] CPU: 0 PID: 10965 Comm: >> modprobe Tainted: G W >> 3.16.0-rc3-next-20140704-sasha-00023-g26c0906-dirty #765 > > Something's fucked; so we have: > > debug_spin_lock_before() SPIN_BUG_ON(lock->owner == current, "recursion"); > > Causing that, _HOWEVER_ look at .owner_cpu and the reporting cpu!! How can > the lock owner, own the lock on cpu 15 and again contend with it on CPU 0. > That's impossible. > > About when-ish did you start seeing things like this? Lemme go stare hard at > recent changes. >
~next-20140704 I guess, about when I reported the original issue. Thanks, Sasha -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
