Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:46:12 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On a serious note, it seems that two scatter lists per request leaded > to this bug. Can the scatter list in struct ub_request be removed? Good question. It's an eyesore to be sure. The duplication exists for the sake of retries combined with the separation of requests from commands. Please bear with me, if you're curious: commands can be launched without requests (at probe time, for instance, or when sense is requested). So, they need an s/g table. But then, the lifetime of a request is greater than than of a command, in case of a retry especially. Therefore a request needs the s/g table too. So, one way to kill this duplication is to mandate that a request existed for every command. It seemed like way more code than just one memcpy() when I wrote it. Another way would be to make commands flexible, e.g. sometimes with just a virtual address and size, sometimes with an s/g table. If you guys make struct scatterlist illegal to copy with memcpy one day, this is probably what I'll do. -- Pete -- 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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 23:46:19 -0800
Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:05:06 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > http://students.zipernowsky.hu/~oliverp/kernel/regression_2624/
>
> > I think ub.c is basically abandoned in favour of usb-storage.
> > If so, perhaps we should remove or disble ub.c?
>
> Looks like it's just Tomo or Jens made a mistake when converting to
> the new s/g API. Nothing to be too concerned about. I know I should've
> reviewed their patch closer, but it seemed too simple...
I guess I can put the blame for this on Jens' commit (45711f1a) ;)
On a serious note, it seems that two scatter lists per request leaded
to this bug. Can the scatter list in struct ub_request be removed?
Thanks,
> -- Pete
>
> Fix up the conversion to sg_init_table().
>
> Signed-off-by: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --- a/drivers/block/ub.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/ub.c
> @@ -657,7 +657,6 @@ static int ub_request_fn_1(struct ub_lun *lun, struct
> request *rq)
> if ((cmd = ub_get_cmd(lun)) == NULL)
> return -1;
> memset(cmd, 0, sizeof(struct ub_scsi_cmd));
> - sg_init_table(cmd->sgv, UB_MAX_REQ_SG);
>
> blkdev_dequeue_request(rq);
>
> @@ -668,6 +667,7 @@ static int ub_request_fn_1(struct ub_lun *lun, struct
> request *rq)
> /*
>* get scatterlist from block layer
>*/
> + sg_init_table(&urq->sgv[0], UB_MAX_REQ_SG);
> n_elem = blk_rq_map_sg(lun->disk->queue, rq, &urq->sgv[0]);
> if (n_elem < 0) {
> /* Impossible, because blk_rq_map_sg should not hit ENOMEM. */
> --
> 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/
--
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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:05:06 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > http://students.zipernowsky.hu/~oliverp/kernel/regression_2624/
> I think ub.c is basically abandoned in favour of usb-storage.
> If so, perhaps we should remove or disble ub.c?
Looks like it's just Tomo or Jens made a mistake when converting to
the new s/g API. Nothing to be too concerned about. I know I should've
reviewed their patch closer, but it seemed too simple...
-- Pete
Fix up the conversion to sg_init_table().
Signed-off-by: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- a/drivers/block/ub.c
+++ b/drivers/block/ub.c
@@ -657,7 +657,6 @@ static int ub_request_fn_1(struct ub_lun *lun, struct
request *rq)
if ((cmd = ub_get_cmd(lun)) == NULL)
return -1;
memset(cmd, 0, sizeof(struct ub_scsi_cmd));
- sg_init_table(cmd->sgv, UB_MAX_REQ_SG);
blkdev_dequeue_request(rq);
@@ -668,6 +667,7 @@ static int ub_request_fn_1(struct ub_lun *lun, struct
request *rq)
/*
* get scatterlist from block layer
*/
+ sg_init_table(&urq->sgv[0], UB_MAX_REQ_SG);
n_elem = blk_rq_map_sg(lun->disk->queue, rq, &urq->sgv[0]);
if (n_elem < 0) {
/* Impossible, because blk_rq_map_sg should not hit ENOMEM. */
--
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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
/usr/data/source/git/linux-2.6/drivers/block/ub.c: In function 'ub_end_rq': /usr/data/source/git/linux-2.6/drivers/block/ub.c:819: error: implicit declaration of function 'end_that_request_first' /usr/data/source/git/linux-2.6/drivers/block/ub.c:820: error: implicit declaration of function 'end_that_request_last' make[7]: *** [drivers/block/ub.o] Error 1 make[6]: *** [drivers/block] Error 2 make[5]: *** [drivers] Error 2 make[5]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs On 2/5/08, Oliver Pinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i reverted this commit 7d699bafe258ebd8f9b4ec182c554200b369a504 , and > now compile ... > > On 2/5/08, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:05:06 -0800, Andrew Morton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Looks like you deadlocked in ub_request_fn(). I assume that you were > > using > > > ub.c in 2.6.23 and that it worked OK? If so, we broke it, possibly via > > > changes to the core block layer. > > > > > > I think ub.c is basically abandoned in favour of usb-storage. If so, > > > perhaps we should remove or disble ub.c? > > > > Actually I think it may be an argument for keeping ub, if ub exposes > > a bug in the __blk_end_request. I'll look at the head of the thread > > and see if Mr. Pinter has hit anything related to Mr. Ueda's work. > > > > -- Pete > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Oliver > -- Thanks, Oliver -- 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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
i reverted this commit 7d699bafe258ebd8f9b4ec182c554200b369a504 , and now compile ... On 2/5/08, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:05:06 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Looks like you deadlocked in ub_request_fn(). I assume that you were > using > > ub.c in 2.6.23 and that it worked OK? If so, we broke it, possibly via > > changes to the core block layer. > > > > I think ub.c is basically abandoned in favour of usb-storage. If so, > > perhaps we should remove or disble ub.c? > > Actually I think it may be an argument for keeping ub, if ub exposes > a bug in the __blk_end_request. I'll look at the head of the thread > and see if Mr. Pinter has hit anything related to Mr. Ueda's work. > > -- Pete > -- Thanks, Oliver -- 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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:05:06 -0800, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looks like you deadlocked in ub_request_fn(). I assume that you were using > ub.c in 2.6.23 and that it worked OK? If so, we broke it, possibly via > changes to the core block layer. > > I think ub.c is basically abandoned in favour of usb-storage. If so, > perhaps we should remove or disble ub.c? Actually I think it may be an argument for keeping ub, if ub exposes a bug in the __blk_end_request. I'll look at the head of the thread and see if Mr. Pinter has hit anything related to Mr. Ueda's work. -- Pete -- 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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:48:29 +0100 "Oliver Pinter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/5/08, Oliver Pinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://students.zipernowsky.hu/~oliverp/kernel/regression_2624/ > > > > uploaded: > > kernel image > > .config > > new pictures > > lspci > > lsusb > > > > - > > > > when read for /dev/uba then crashed the kernel, the read is egal, thet > > dd or mount is ... Looks like you deadlocked in ub_request_fn(). I assume that you were using ub.c in 2.6.23 and that it worked OK? If so, we broke it, possibly via changes to the core block layer. I think ub.c is basically abandoned in favour of usb-storage. If so, perhaps we should remove or disble ub.c? -- 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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
On 2/5/08, Oliver Pinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://students.zipernowsky.hu/~oliverp/kernel/regression_2624/ > > uploaded: > kernel image > .config > new pictures > lspci > lsusb > > - > > when read for /dev/uba then crashed the kernel, the read is egal, thet > dd or mount is ... > > On 2/5/08, Oliver Pinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > yes, but auch too with latest git ... my top is on: > > 9ef9dc69d4167276c04590d67ee55de8380bc1ad > > > > then i complie the new kernel > > > > On 2/5/08, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:46:56 -0500 Stephen Smalley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 21:39 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:31:43 +0100 "Oliver Pinter (Pintér Olivér)" > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > hi all! > > > > > > > > > > > > in the 2.6.24 become i some soft lockups with usb-phone, when i > > pluged > > > > > > in the mobile, then the vfs-layer crashed. am afternoon can i the > > > > > > .config send, and i bisected the kernel, when i have time. > > > > > > > > > > > > pictures from crash: > > > > > > http://students.zipernowsky.hu/~oliverp/kernel/regression_2624/ > > > > > > > > > > It looks like selinux's file_has_perm() is doing spin_lock() on an > > > > > uninitialised (or already locked) spinlock. > > > > > > > > The trace looks bogus to me - I don't see how file_has_perm() could > > have > > > > been called there, and file_has_perm() doesn't directly take any spin > > > > locks. > > > > > > > > > > Oliver, could you please set CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y (which might get a > > > better trace), and perhaps try Linus's latest tree from > > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/ (which is a bit > > more > > > careful about telling us about possibly-bogus backtrace entries)? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Oliver > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Oliver > -- Thanks, Oliver -- 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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 21:39 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:31:43 +0100 "Oliver Pinter (Pintér Olivér)" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > hi all! > > > > in the 2.6.24 become i some soft lockups with usb-phone, when i pluged > > in the mobile, then the vfs-layer crashed. am afternoon can i the > > .config send, and i bisected the kernel, when i have time. > > > > pictures from crash: > > http://students.zipernowsky.hu/~oliverp/kernel/regression_2624/ > > It looks like selinux's file_has_perm() is doing spin_lock() on an > uninitialised (or already locked) spinlock. The trace looks bogus to me - I don't see how file_has_perm() could have been called there, and file_has_perm() doesn't directly take any spin locks. -- Stephen Smalley National Security Agency -- 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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:31:43 +0100 "Oliver Pinter (Pintér Olivér)" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > hi all! > > > > in the 2.6.24 become i some soft lockups with usb-phone, when i pluged > > in the mobile, then the vfs-layer crashed. am afternoon can i the > > .config send, and i bisected the kernel, when i have time. > > > > pictures from crash: > > http://students.zipernowsky.hu/~oliverp/kernel/regression_2624/ > > It looks like selinux's file_has_perm() is doing spin_lock() on an > uninitialised (or already locked) spinlock. Perplexing. Do you have all of the lock debugging enabled? - James -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:31:43 +0100 "Oliver Pinter (Pintér Olivér)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi all! > > in the 2.6.24 become i some soft lockups with usb-phone, when i pluged > in the mobile, then the vfs-layer crashed. am afternoon can i the > .config send, and i bisected the kernel, when i have time. > > pictures from crash: > http://students.zipernowsky.hu/~oliverp/kernel/regression_2624/ It looks like selinux's file_has_perm() is doing spin_lock() on an uninitialised (or already locked) spinlock. -- 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/
Re: [2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
and so then dmesg .. -- Thanks, Oliver Initializing cgroup subsys cpuset Linux version 2.6.24-szami2 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21)) #2 SMP Sun Jan 27 01:47:58 CET 2008 BIOS-provided physical RAM map: BIOS-e820: - 0009fc00 (usable) BIOS-e820: 0009fc00 - 000a (reserved) BIOS-e820: 000e8000 - 0010 (reserved) BIOS-e820: 0010 - 1ff3 (usable) BIOS-e820: 1ff3 - 1ff4 (ACPI data) BIOS-e820: 1ff4 - 1fff (ACPI NVS) BIOS-e820: 1fff - 2000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: ffb8 - 0001 (reserved) 0MB HIGHMEM available. 511MB LOWMEM available. found SMP MP-table at 000ff780 Entering add_active_range(0, 0, 130864) 0 entries of 256 used Zone PFN ranges: DMA 0 -> 4096 Normal 4096 -> 130864 HighMem130864 -> 130864 Movable zone start PFN for each node early_node_map[1] active PFN ranges 0:0 -> 130864 On node 0 totalpages: 130864 DMA zone: 56 pages used for memmap DMA zone: 0 pages reserved DMA zone: 4040 pages, LIFO batch:0 Normal zone: 1733 pages used for memmap Normal zone: 125035 pages, LIFO batch:31 HighMem zone: 0 pages used for memmap Movable zone: 0 pages used for memmap DMI 2.3 present. ACPI: RSDP 000F9E30, 0021 (r2 ACPIAM) ACPI: XSDT 1FF30100, 003C (r1 A M I OEMXSDT 1414 MSFT 97) ACPI: FACP 1FF30290, 00F4 (r3 A M I OEMFACP 1414 MSFT 97) ACPI: DSDT 1FF303F0, 3779 (r1 P4C8B P4C8B106 106 INTL 2002026) ACPI: FACS 1FF4, 0040 ACPI: APIC 1FF30390, 005C (r1 A M I OEMAPIC 1414 MSFT 97) ACPI: OEMB 1FF40040, 003F (r1 A M I OEMBIOS 1414 MSFT 97) ACPI: PM-Timer IO Port: 0x808 ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee0 ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) Processor #0 15:2 APIC version 20 ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x01] enabled) Processor #1 15:2 APIC version 20 ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x02] address[0xfec0] gsi_base[0]) IOAPIC[0]: apic_id 2, version 32, address 0xfec0, GSI 0-23 ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 0 global_irq 2 dfl dfl) ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 9 global_irq 9 high level) ACPI: IRQ0 used by override. ACPI: IRQ2 used by override. ACPI: IRQ9 used by override. Enabling APIC mode: Flat. Using 1 I/O APICs Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration information Allocating PCI resources starting at 3000 (gap: 2000:dfb8) Built 1 zonelists in Zone order, mobility grouping on. Total pages: 129075 Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGE=deb_s2.6.24 ro root=803 1 mapped APIC to b000 (fee0) mapped IOAPIC to a000 (fec0) Enabling fast FPU save and restore... done. Enabling unmasked SIMD FPU exception support... done. Initializing CPU#0 PID hash table entries: 2048 (order: 11, 8192 bytes) Detected 3150.239 MHz processor. Console: colour VGA+ 132x44 console [tty0] enabled Lock dependency validator: Copyright (c) 2006 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo Molnar ... MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES:8 ... MAX_LOCK_DEPTH: 30 ... MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS:2048 ... CLASSHASH_SIZE: 1024 ... MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES: 8192 ... MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS: 16384 ... CHAINHASH_SIZE: 8192 memory used by lock dependency info: 1024 kB per task-struct memory footprint: 1680 bytes | Locking API testsuite: | spin |wlock |rlock |mutex | wsem | rsem | -- A-A deadlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | A-B-B-A deadlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | A-B-B-C-C-A deadlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | A-B-C-A-B-C deadlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | A-B-B-C-C-D-D-A deadlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | A-B-C-D-B-D-D-A deadlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | A-B-C-D-B-C-D-A deadlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | double unlock: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | initialize held: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | bad unlock order: ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | ok | -- recursive read-lock: | ok | | ok | recursive read-lock #2: | ok | | ok | mixed read-write-lock: | ok | | ok | mixed write-read-lock: | ok | | ok | -- hard-irqs-on + irq-safe-A/12: ok | ok | ok | soft-irqs-on + irq-safe-A/12: o
[2.6.24 REGRESSION] BUG: Soft lockup - with VFS
hi all! in the 2.6.24 become i some soft lockups with usb-phone, when i pluged in the mobile, then the vfs-layer crashed. am afternoon can i the .config send, and i bisected the kernel, when i have time. pictures from crash: http://students.zipernowsky.hu/~oliverp/kernel/regression_2624/ -- Thanks, Oliver -- 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/
