On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 05:59:41 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 10:22:54AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 01:53:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I must defer to Borislav on this one. Assuming it has the desired
> > > effect, I am good w
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 10:22:54AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 01:53:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I must defer to Borislav on this one. Assuming it has the desired
> > effect, I am good with it.
>
> It did survive a bunch of reboots (the WARN would fire afte
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 01:53:21PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> I must defer to Borislav on this one. Assuming it has the desired
> effect, I am good with it.
It did survive a bunch of reboots (the WARN would fire after boot
finishes, normally) so I guess we can run with it and see how it wor
gt; > > > [ 62.409125] =====
> > > > > [ 62.409129] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > > > > [ 62.409133] 4.19.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
> > > > > [ 62.409136] -
> > > > &g
Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > > Thx.
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > [ 62.409125] =
> > > > [ 62.409129] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > > > [ 62.409133] 4.19.0-rc1+ #1 Not
===
> > > [ 62.409129] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > > [ 62.409133] 4.19.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
> > > [ 62.409136] -
> > > [ 62.409140] ./include/linux/rcupdate.h:631 rcu_read_lock() used
> > > il
Thanx, Paul
>
> > Thx.
> >
> > ---
> > [ 62.409125] =
> > [ 62.409129] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> > [ 62.409133] 4.19.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
> > [ 62.409136] -------
==
> [ 62.409129] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> [ 62.409133] 4.19.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
> [ 62.409136] -
> [ 62.409140] ./include/linux/rcupdate.h:631 rcu_read_lock() used illegally
> while idle!
> [ 62.409143]
>other info t
: suspicious RCU usage
[ 62.409133] 4.19.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
[ 62.409136] -
[ 62.409140] ./include/linux/rcupdate.h:631 rcu_read_lock() used illegally
while idle!
[ 62.409143]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 62.409147
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 02:12:43PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Frederic Weisbecker
> wrote:
> > I don't know. It's possible that something went wrong with the recent
> > entry_64.S
> > and ptrace.c rework.
> >
> > Previously we expected to set context tracking
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:38:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:06:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >
>> > > >> Did something in RCU change rec
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:38:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:06:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > > >> Did something in RCU change recently ?
> > > >
> > > > Not since -rc1, as far as I know, anyway
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:06:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > >> Did something in RCU change recently ?
> > >
> > > Not since -rc1, as far as I know, anyway.
> >
> > I have patches to delete this whole fscking sysret fast but not r
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:06:56PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> Did something in RCU change recently ?
> >
> > Not since -rc1, as far as I know, anyway.
>
> I have patches to delete this whole fscking sysret fast but not really
> fast path. I'll resend them for 3.19. In the mean t
Thanx, Paul
>
>> ===
>> [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
>> 3.18.0-rc7+ #93 Not tainted
>> ---
>> include/linux/rcupdate.h:883 rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle!
>>
>> other inf
ince -rc1, as far as I know, anyway.
Thanx, Paul
> ===
> [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> 3.18.0-rc7+ #93 Not tainted
> ---
> include/linux/rcupdate.h:883 rcu_read_lock() used illegally while i
RCU change recently ?
===
[ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
3.18.0-rc7+ #93 Not tainted
---
include/linux/rcupdate.h:883 rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle!
other info that might help us debug this:
RCU used illegally from idle CPU!
rcu_
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 05:32:53PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Paul, this looks to be a nocb rcu bug.
Excellent work tracing this down! I have queued your fix, and if it
passes testing, I will push for 3.10.
Thanx, Paul
> On Tue, 2013-0
Paul, this looks to be a nocb rcu bug.
On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 16:13 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> [12572.705832] ==
> [12572.750317] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [12572.796978] 3.10.0-rc3+ #39 Not tainted
> [12572.83338
On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 16:13 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 02:20:04PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 09:59 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:23:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 10:23 -0400, Dave J
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 02:20:04PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 09:59 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:23:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 10:23 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > .config: http://paste.fedorapr
hit this..
>
> This is a same but different bug ;-)
>
> Looks like we fixed all the function tracing infrastructure problems,
> but this is a function tracer user problem. Namely perf.
>
> >
> > [53693.297516] ===
> &g
==
> [53693.298109] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> [53693.298562] 3.10.0-rc2+ #38 Not tainted
> [53693.299017] ---
> [53693.299474] include/linux/rcupdate.h:771 rcu_read_lock() used illegally
> while idle!
> [53693.299959]
===
[53693.298109] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
[53693.298562] 3.10.0-rc2+ #38 Not tainted
[53693.299017] ---
[53693.299474] include/linux/rcupdate.h:771 rcu_read_lock() used illegally
while idle!
[53693.299959]
other info that might help us debug this:
[53693.3
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:23:40PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 10:23 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > .config: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/14281/94052971/raw/
> >
> > trace shows the problem process was 'cc1', so I was likely building a
> > kernel
> > at the time
On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 10:23 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> .config: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/14281/94052971/raw/
>
> trace shows the problem process was 'cc1', so I was likely building a kernel
> at the time. There was also a trinity run going on in the background.
>
> cmdline: nothing specia
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 09:46:20AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > This looks to be the caused by the same issue that this patch fixes:
> > >
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/10/537
> > >
> > > The schedule_user() was traced, and the preempt_enable_no_trace() that
> > > the func
-
> > > include/linux/rcupdate.h:771 rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle!
> > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > RCU used illegally from idle CPU! rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks
> = 0
> > > RCU used illegally f
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 08:49:18AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > ===
> > [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> > 3.10.0-rc2+ #1 Not tainted
> > ---
> > include/linux/rcupdate.h:771 rcu_read_lock() used il
Thanx, Paul
>
> > [ 839.278967] ===
> > [ 839.279023] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> > [ 839.279080] 3.10.0-rc2+ #1 Not tainted
> > [ 839.279129] -----------
> > [ 839.279185] include/linux/rcupdate.h:771 rcu_read_lock() used illegall
0.0-rc2+ #1 Not tainted
> [ 839.279129] ---
> [ 839.279185] include/linux/rcupdate.h:771 rcu_read_lock() used illegally
> while idle!
> [ 839.279273]
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> [ 839.279370]
> RCU used illegally from id
79129] ---
[ 839.279185] include/linux/rcupdate.h:771 rcu_read_lock() used illegally
while idle!
[ 839.279273]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 839.279370]
RCU used illegally from idle CPU!
rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
[ 839.279497] RCU used illegally from extended quiescent
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 02:06:41PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > OK, I interpret this as excluding NMI handlers, but please let me
> > know if I am still being naive. ;-)
> >
>
> You are correct. This is only called where lockdep
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> OK, I interpret this as excluding NMI handlers, but please let me
> know if I am still being naive. ;-)
>
You are correct. This is only called where lockdep is called (to trace
enabling of IRQS). Note, that its called before normal ir
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 01:24:57PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:17 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > rcu: Permit RCU_NONIDLE() to be used from interrupt context
> >
> > There is a need to use RCU from interrupt context, but either before
> > rcu_irq_enter() is called
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:17 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> rcu: Permit RCU_NONIDLE() to be used from interrupt context
>
> There is a need to use RCU from interrupt context, but either before
> rcu_irq_enter() is called or after rcu_irq_exit() is called. If the
> interrupt occurs from idle, th
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:45:02AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 08:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:56:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > > > OK, I will bite. How abou
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 08:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:56:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > > OK, I will bite. How about using something like RCU_NONIDLE(), either
> > > > directly or open-code
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:56:23AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > OK, I will bite. How about using something like RCU_NONIDLE(), either
> > > directly or open-coded, to make it a legal call site?
> >
> > OK, then something like:
>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:51:51AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 07:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > Found it (and Cc'd David).
> > >
> > > In __update_max_tr() we have:
> > >
> > > max_data = task_uid(tsk);
> > >
> > > where task_uid() is:
> > >
> > > #define
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 10:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > OK, I will bite. How about using something like RCU_NONIDLE(), either
> > directly or open-coded, to make it a legal call site?
>
> OK, then something like:
>
> RCU_NONIDLE(max_data = task_uid(tsk));
>
> would work when called
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 07:44 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Found it (and Cc'd David).
> >
> > In __update_max_tr() we have:
> >
> > max_data = task_uid(tsk);
> >
> > where task_uid() is:
> >
> > #define task_uid(task) (task_cred_xxx((task), uid))
> >
> > #define task_cred
69] Testing tracer irqsoff: [1.524917]
> > > > [1.525217] ===
> > > > [1.525868] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> > > > [ 1.526556] 3.5.0+ #1289 Not tainted
> > > > [1.527124] --
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:44:13AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 20:10 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>
> > Another note: the above __update_max_tr back trace only appear accasionally.
> > The more typical error messages look like this:
> >
> > [ 16.195315] Running tests on t
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 20:10 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Another note: the above __update_max_tr back trace only appear accasionally.
> The more typical error messages look like this:
>
> [ 16.195315] Running tests on trace events:
> [ 16.196586] Testing event kfree_skb: [ 16.200404] --
usage. ]
> > > [1.526556] 3.5.0+ #1289 Not tainted
> > > [ 1.527124] ---
> > > [1.527799] /c/kernel-tests/src/linux/include/linux/rcupdate.h:730
> > > rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle!
> > > [1.529375
1.380369] Testing tracer irqsoff: [1.524917]
> > [1.525217] ===
> > [1.525868] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> > [1.526556] 3.5.0+ #1289 Not tainted
> > [1.527124] ---
> > [1.527799] /
[1.526556] 3.5.0+ #1289 Not tainted
> [1.527124] ---
> [1.527799] /c/kernel-tests/src/linux/include/linux/rcupdate.h:730
> rcu_read_lock() used illegally while idle!
> [1.529375]
> [1.529375] other info that might help us debug this:
> [
48 matches
Mail list logo
