On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.le...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>>>> [ 543.999079] Call Trace: >>>>>> [ 543.999079] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] lockdep_rcu_suspicious (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4259) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] atomic_notifier_call_chain (include/linux/rcupdate.h:892 >>>>>> kernel/notifier.c:182 kernel/notifier.c:193) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:192) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] notify_die (kernel/notifier.c:538) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:538) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? debug_smp_processor_id (lib/smp_processor_id.c:57) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] do_debug (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:652) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2609) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? do_int3 (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:610) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2554 >>>>>> kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2601) >>>>>> [ 543.999079] debug (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:1310) >>>>> >>>>> I don't know how to read this stack trace. Are we in do_int3, >>>>> do_debug, or both? I didn't change do_debug at all. >>>> >>>> It looks like we're in do_debug. do_int3 is only on the stack but not >>>> part of the current frame if I can trust the '?' ... >>>> >>> >>> It's possible that an int3 happened and I did something wrong on >>> return that caused a subsequent do_debug to screw up, but I don't see >>> how my patch would have caused that. >>> >>> Were there any earlier log messages? >> >> Nope, nothing odd before or after. > > Trinity just survived for a decent amount of time for me with my > patches, other than a bunch of apparently expected OOM kills. I have > no idea how to tell trinity how much memory to use. >
A longer trinity run on a larger VM survived (still with some OOM kills, but no taint) with these patches. I suspect that it's a regression somewhere else in the RCU changes. I have CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, so I should have seen the failure if it was there, I think. --Andy -- 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/
