I do not see it with my config. I have cleaned up a few things and can send an updated version.
At the same time it is 100% reproducible using the config I got from Thomas. So this is somehow config dependent. I have compared the configs and the biggest difference I can see is that Thomas has most of the debug options enabled. Everything else is the same or not relevant (nat, etc - module options). In any case - I cannot make sense of the traces - they show nested invocation of the sigio handler and nested interrupt invocation. If there is no stack corruption there should be no way to get that - the enable/disable and hard handler code in signal.c ensures that. I will probably add some "manual" debug code to check if the nested invocation happens with the debug options off. A. On 11/11/15 21:05, Richard Weinberger wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Meyer <tho...@m3y3r.de> wrote: >> Am Montag, den 09.11.2015, 15:03 +0000 schrieb Anton Ivanov: >>> It throws a couple of harmless "epoll del fd" warnings on reboot >>> which >>> result the fact that disable_fd/enable_fd are not removed in the >>> terminal/line code. >>> >>> These are harmless and will go away once the term/line code gets >>> support >>> for real write IRQs in addition to read at some point in the future. >>> >>> I have fixed the file descriptor leak in the reboot case. >> Hi, >> >> now with the list on copy! >> >> Richard: can you make some sense out of these stack traces? I can >> provide the config if you want! >> >> I see a lot of bugs of type "BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#0" with >> this patch: >> >> I did look over your patch and found two errors in the irq_lock >> spinlock handling: >> >> http://m3y3r.dyndns.org:9100/gerrit/#/c/2/1..2/arch/um/kernel/irq.c >> >> But it still seems to miss something as above bugs still occurs, but >> now the system boots up a bit more at least. >> >> Example: >> [ 225.570000] BUG: spinlock lockup suspected on CPU#0, chmod/516 >> [ 225.570000] lock: irq_lock+0x0/0x18, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: > Hmmm, UML is UP and does not support PREEMPT, so all spinlocks > should be a no-op. > Do you have lock debugging enabled? > > I this case I'd start gdb and inspect the memory. Maybe a stack corruption. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
