Re: lots of suspicious RCU traces

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (10/25/12 00:32), Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> First of all, thanks a lot for your report.
> 
> 2012/10/24 Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On (10/24/12 20:06), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> On 10/24, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >> >
> >> > small question,
> >> >
> >> > ptrace_notify() and forward calls are able to both indirectly and directly call schedule(),
> >> > /* direct call from ptrace_stop()*/,
> >> > should, in this case, rcu_user_enter() be called before tracehook_report_syscall_exit(regs, step)
> >> > and ptrace chain?
> >>
> >> Well, I don't really understand this magic... but why?
> >>
> >
> > My understanding is (I may be wrong) that we can schedule() from ptrace chain to
> > some arbitrary task, which will continue its execution from the point where RCU assumes
> > CPU as not idle, while CPU in fact still in idle state -- no one said rcu_idle_exit()
> > (or similar) prior to schedule() call.
> 
> Yeah but when we are in syscall_trace_leave(), the CPU shouldn't be in
> RCU idle mode. That's where the bug is. How do you manage to trigger
> this bug?
>

strace -f <anything>

 
	-ss
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/