From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751951AbcF0LWl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:22:41 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:48890 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750870AbcF0LWk (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 27 Jun 2016 07:22:40 -0400
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:22:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, lkp@01.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [sched]  56c8928eba: INFO: trying to register non-static key.
Message-ID: <20160627112236.GB30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <5771093b.xqSw3Z0NKNPHfNw8%xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5771093b.xqSw3Z0NKNPHfNw8%xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 07:08:43PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> [   36.894449] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> [   36.894450] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
> [   36.894451] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> [   36.894456] CPU: 0 PID: 817 Comm: mount Not tainted 4.7.0-rc4-00255-g56c8928 #1
> [   36.894457] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Debian-1.8.2-1 04/01/2014
> [   36.894462]  0000000000000000 ffff8800299a3a98 ffffffff81776247 0000000000000000
> [   36.894465]  0000000000000001 ffff8800299a3b00 ffffffff8111ebaa ffff8800299a3ab8
> [   36.894469]  ffffffff8109b058 00000000299a3ac8 ffffffff81077fe3 ffff8800299a3ad8
> [   36.894469] Call Trace:
> [   36.894513]  [<ffffffff81776247>] dump_stack+0x82/0xb8
> [   36.894538]  [<ffffffff8111ebaa>] register_lock_class+0x142/0x2f1
> [   36.894570]  [<ffffffff81121bc7>] __lock_acquire+0x15a/0xe6f
> [   36.894606]  [<ffffffff81122ca5>] lock_acquire+0x13d/0x1d6
> [   36.894612]  [<ffffffff82eced97>] _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x3f/0x75
> [   36.894616]  [<ffffffff82ecb9d8>] __wait_for_common+0x42/0x148
> [   36.894620]  [<ffffffff82ecbb02>] wait_for_completion+0x24/0x26
> [   36.894626]  [<ffffffff810ff577>] kthread_stop+0x107/0x2a2
> [   36.894632]  [<ffffffff810f972e>] destroy_workqueue+0x14d/0x201

I'm thinking this is the same problem as before; because of the stack
being wiped, the lockdep state got trashed and *boom*.