On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 10:03:30AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> The rcu_lockdep_assert should be merely a warning, not a full OOPS.
It is still pretty huge, see below.
> I think that, if rcu_lockdep_assert hangs, then we should fix that
> rather than avoiding debugging checks.
The RCU assertion firing might be unrelated to the oops happening and
could prevent us from seeing the real splat.
[ 0.048815]
[ 0.050493] ===============================
[ 0.052005] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
[ 0.056007] 4.1.0-rc8+ #4 Not tainted
[ 0.060005] -------------------------------
[ 0.064005] arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c:677 BOINK!
[ 0.066758]
[ 0.066758] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 0.066758]
[ 0.068006]
[ 0.068006] rcu_scheduler_active = 0, debug_locks = 0
[ 0.072005] no locks held by swapper/0/0.
[ 0.076005]
[ 0.076005] stack backtrace:
[ 0.080006] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.1.0-rc8+ #4
[ 0.083331] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
1.7.5-20140531_083030-gandalf 04/01/2014
[ 0.084021] 0000000000000000 ffffffff81967eb8 ffffffff816709c7
0000000000000000
[ 0.092005] ffffffff81975580 ffffffff81967ee8 ffffffff8109e8cd
0000000000000000
[ 0.097227] ffffffff81a3aec0 ffffffff81cad9c0 ffffffff81cb42c0
ffffffff81967f38
[ 0.104005] Call Trace:
[ 0.106021] [<ffffffff816709c7>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x7b
[ 0.108007] [<ffffffff8109e8cd>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xfd/0x130
[ 0.112007] [<ffffffff81017f74>] init_amd+0x34/0x560
[ 0.116007] [<ffffffff810164e2>] identify_cpu+0x242/0x3b0
[ 0.119068] [<ffffffff81c27172>] identify_boot_cpu+0x10/0x7e
[ 0.120006] [<ffffffff81c27214>] check_bugs+0x9/0x2d
[ 0.124007] [<ffffffff81c1fe8e>] start_kernel+0x40e/0x425
[ 0.128007] [<ffffffff81c1f495>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
[ 0.132009] [<ffffffff81c1f582>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xeb/0xef
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
