From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754031Ab3BFNVb (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:21:31 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:16690 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751551Ab3BFNVa (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:21:30 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=C91rOHz+ c=1 sm=0 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:17 a=mNMOxpOpBa8A:10 a=_Bp3_fu7e2UA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=wIfm1DkAj9kA:10 a=uYVGJH5IAAAA:8 a=TP7dVeSyjimTlQAVxQcA:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 74.67.115.198 Message-ID: <1360156888.2621.42.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: Question on lockdep and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH From: Steven Rostedt To: Ben Greear Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 08:21:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5111F6F6.7010402@candelatech.com> References: <5111AD8D.1080005@candelatech.com> <20130206015430.GA9161@home.goodmis.org> <5111BF51.5010607@candelatech.com> <1360119124.2621.37.camel@gandalf.local.home> <5111CE60.4080403@candelatech.com> <1360125419.2621.39.camel@gandalf.local.home> <5111F6F6.7010402@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 22:23 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > On 02/05/2013 08:36 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-02-05 at 19:30 -0800, Ben Greear wrote: > > > >> It's huge, so here's a link: > >> > >> http://www.candelatech.com/~greearb/debug.tgz > >> > > > > The trace shows that __netif_receive_skb() is grabbing an > > rcu_read_lock() but never releasing it. But I don't see any possible way > > that can be true in the code. > > > > Can you apply the following patch and run the trace again. I'd like to > > see if the code is going in the path I expect it is. > > I'll look at this in detail tomorrow. I have a few patches in dev.c code, maybe > I merged something badly.... I wish you told me that in the beginning. That you modified the core code. In that case I would have asked to see your modifications before anything else. I'm 99% sure that the bug is in your modifications. -- Steve