On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:45:58AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:19:20PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> > FYI, we noticed the following commit:
> >
> > commit: 46a4746d9a364a9b0267c19be0f8419e9b72ad37 ("task_work: Replace
> > spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
> > spin_unlock_wait_no.2017.06.29c
> >
> > in testcase: boot
> >
> > on test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu host -smp 2 -m 1G
> >
> > caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire
> > log/backtrace):
> >
> >
> > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
> > | | ee4c0fbd46 | 46a4746d9a
> > |
> > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
> > | boot_successes | 6 | 0
> > |
> > | boot_failures | 0 | 10
> > |
> > | inconsistent{IN-HARDIRQ-W}->{HARDIRQ-ON-W}usage | 0 | 8
> > |
> > | inconsistent{IN-SOFTIRQ-W}->{SOFTIRQ-ON-W}usage | 0 | 2
> > |
> > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
> >
> >
> >
> > [ 4.784726] WARNING: inconsistent lock state
> > [ 4.785206] 4.12.0-rc4-00090-g46a4746 #86 Not tainted
> > [ 4.785733] --------------------------------
> > [ 4.786203] inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage.
> > [ 4.786815] modprobe/143 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> > [ 4.787377] (&p->pi_lock){?.-.-.}, at: [<ffffffffb31016b7>]
> > task_work_run+0x6e/0xa8
> > [ 4.788202] {IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at:
> > [ 4.788711] __lock_acquire+0x3a9/0xed4
> > [ 4.789151] lock_acquire+0x125/0x1be
> > [ 4.789571] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x49/0x84
> > [ 4.790048] try_to_wake_up+0x35/0x25b
>
> D'oh... so that's another difference between spin_unlock_wait and spin_lock;
> spin_unlock. The former doesn't care about being interrupted, since there's
> no scope for deadlock when you're not actually taking the lock.
>
> So the easy fix here is to use the irqsave/irqrestore variants in
> task_work_run, but it does mean we need to be a little bit careful when
> doing the conversion.
Indeed, very stupid mistake on my part. Hurray for 0day Test Robot! ;-)
I will recheck the others.
Thanx, Paul
