On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 05:46:16PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 07/16/2015 05:42 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:41:50AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 29529 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3497 > > lock_unpin_lock+0x109/0x110() > > > > > unpinning an unpinned lock > > > > > Call Trace:
> > > > > [<ffffffffae0d0ec9>] lock_unpin_lock+0x109/0x110 > > > > > [<ffffffffae7f93cc>] __schedule+0x3ac/0xb60 > > > > > [<ffffffffae7f9c41>] schedule+0x41/0x90 > > > > > [<ffffffffae7f9ff8>] schedule_preempt_disabled+0x18/0x30 > Lock pinning is new in v4.2-rc1. Adding Peter just in case there's some > insight. Hmm, weird. I've not seen it happen before. There's potentially 3 unpin's in __schedule(): - the obvious one in the prev == next case, - the on in context_switch(), - the on in try_to_wake_up_local(). All 3 appear to be balanced; the first and second against the pin_lock() at the start of __schedule() and the third against that and it repins the lock against the first two. Most curious. -- 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/
