Skip to content

L
linux
Switch branch/tag
  1. 01 Feb, 2010 1 commit
    • Jason Wessel's avatar
      softlockup: Add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernel warning on kgdb resume · d6ad3e28
      Jason Wessel authored 
      When CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is set, sched_clock() gets
the time from hardware such as the TSC on x86. In this
configuration kgdb will report a softlock warning message on
resuming or detaching from a debug session.

Sequence of events in the problem case:

 1) "cpu sched clock" and "hardware time" are at 100 sec prior
    to a call to kgdb_handle_exception()

 2) Debugger waits in kgdb_handle_exception() for 80 sec and on
    exit the following is called ...  touch_softlockup_watchdog() -->
    __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = 0;

 3) "cpu sched clock" = 100s (it was not updated, because the
    interrupt was disabled in kgdb) but the "hardware time" = 180 sec

 4) The first timer interrupt after resuming from
    kgdb_handle_exception updates the watchdog from the "cpu sched clock"

update_process_times() { ...  run_local_timers() -->
softlockup_tick() --> check (touch_timestamp == 0) (it is "YES"
here, we have set "touch_timestamp = 0" at kgdb) -->
__touch_softlockup_watchdog() ***(A)--> reset "touch_timestamp"
to "get_timestamp()" (Here, the "touch_timestamp" will still be
set to 100s.)  ...

    scheduler_tick() ***(B)--> sched_clock_tick() (update "cpu sched
    clock" to "hardware time" = 180s) ...  }

 5) The Second timer interrupt handler appears to have a large
    jump and trips the softlockup warning.

update_process_times() { ...  run_local_timers() -->
softlockup_tick() --> "cpu sched clock" - "touch_timestamp" =
180s-100s > 60s --> printk "soft lockup error messages" ...  }

note: ***(A) reset "touch_timestamp" to
"get_timestamp(this_cpu)"

Why is "touch_timestamp" 100 sec, instead of 180 sec?

When CONFIG_HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK is set, the call trace of
get_timestamp() is:

get_timestamp(this_cpu)
 -->cpu_clock(this_cpu)
 -->sched_clock_cpu(this_cpu)
 -->__update_sched_clock(sched_clock_data, now)

The __update_sched_clock() function uses the GTOD tick value to
create a window to normalize the "now" values.  So if "now"
value is too big for sched_clock_data, it will be ignored.

The fix is to invoke sched_clock_tick() to update "cpu sched
clock" in order to recover from this state.  This is done by
introducing the function touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync(). This
allows kgdb to request that the sched clock is updated when the
watchdog thread runs the first time after a resume from kgdb.

[yong.zhang0@gmail.com: Use per cpu instead of an array]
Signed-off-by: default avatarJason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>
Cc: kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: peterz@infradead.org
LKML-Reference: <1264631124-4837-2-git-send-email-jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      d6ad3e28
  3. 27 Jan, 2010 2 commits
    • Oleg Nesterov's avatar
      lockdep: Fix check_usage_backwards() error message · 48d50674
      Oleg Nesterov authored 
      Lockdep has found the real bug, but the output doesn't look right to me:

> =========================================================
> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> 2.6.33-rc5 #77
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> emacs/1609 just changed the state of lock:
>  (&(&tty->ctrl_lock)->rlock){+.....}, at: [<ffffffff8127c648>] tty_fasync+0xe8/0x190
> but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
>  (&(&sighand->siglock)->rlock){-.....}

"HARDIRQ-unsafe" and "this lock took another" looks wrong, afaics.

>   ... key      at: [<ffffffff81c054a4>] __key.46539+0x0/0x8
>   ... acquired at:
>    [<ffffffff81089af6>] __lock_acquire+0x1056/0x15a0
>    [<ffffffff8108a0df>] lock_acquire+0x9f/0x120
>    [<ffffffff81423012>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x52/0x90
>    [<ffffffff8127c1be>] __proc_set_tty+0x3e/0x150
>    [<ffffffff8127e01d>] tty_open+0x51d/0x5e0

The stack-trace shows that this lock (ctrl_lock) was taken under
->siglock (which is hopefully irq-safe).

This is a clear typo in check_usage_backwards() where we tell the print a
fancy routine we're forwards.
Signed-off-by: default avatarOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <20100126181641.GA10460@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      48d50674
    • Greg Kroah-Hartman's avatar
      fnctl: f_modown should call write_lock_irqsave/restore · b04da8bf
      Greg Kroah-Hartman authored 
      Commit 70362511 exposed that f_modown()
should call write_lock_irqsave instead of just write_lock_irq so that
because a caller could have a spinlock held and it would not be good to
renable interrupts.

Cc: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Tavis Ormandy <taviso@google.com>
Cc: stable <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      b04da8bf
  5. 26 Jan, 2010 10 commits
  7. 25 Jan, 2010 27 commits
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7