From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9575BCD13D1 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 01:10:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233845AbjIRBK2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2023 21:10:28 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50096 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232870AbjIRBKO (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Sep 2023 21:10:14 -0400 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.189]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10095127; Sun, 17 Sep 2023 18:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dggpeml500021.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.55]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4RpmpJ4FRSzMlK2; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 09:06:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.177.174] (10.174.177.174) by dggpeml500021.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.31; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 09:10:04 +0800 Message-ID: <9efe2f14-c3d9-e526-d561-b6a0aca6c491@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 09:10:04 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.1.2 Subject: Re: [czhong@redhat.com: [bug report] WARNING: CPU: 121 PID: 93233 at fs/dcache.c:365 __dentry_kill+0x214/0x278] Content-Language: en-US To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Yi Zhang , Ming Lei , , Christian Brauner , , Alexander Viro , , , Changhui Zhong , yangerkun , "zhangyi (F)" , Kees Cook , chengzhihao , Baokun Li References: <20230823-kuppe-lassen-bc81a20dd831@brauner> <89d049ed-6bbf-bba7-80d4-06c060e65e5b@huawei.com> <20230917091031.GA1543@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Baokun Li In-Reply-To: <20230917091031.GA1543@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.177.174] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.180) To dggpeml500021.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.21) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2023/9/17 17:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 02:55:47PM +0800, Baokun Li wrote: >> On 2023/9/13 16:59, Yi Zhang wrote: >>> The issue still can be reproduced on the latest linux tree[2]. >>> To reproduce I need to run about 1000 times blktests block/001, and >>> bisect shows it was introduced with commit[1], as it was not 100% >>> reproduced, not sure if it's the culprit? >>> >>> >>> [1] 9257959a6e5b locking/atomic: scripts: restructure fallback ifdeffery >> Hello, everyone！ >> >> We have confirmed that the merge-in of this patch caused hlist_bl_lock >> (aka, bit_spin_lock) to fail, which in turn triggered the issue above. >> [root@localhost ~]# insmod mymod.ko >> [   37.994787][  T621] >>> a = 725, b = 724 >> [   37.995313][  T621] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> [   37.995951][  T621] kernel BUG at fs/mymod/mymod.c:42! >> [r[  oo 3t7@.l996o4c61al]h[o s T6t21] ~ ]#Int ernal error: Oops - BUG: >> 00000000f2000800 [#1] SMP >> [   37.997420][  T621] Modules linked in: mymod(E) >> [   37.997891][  T621] CPU: 9 PID: 621 Comm: bl_lock_thread2 Tainted: >> G            E      6.4.0-rc2-00034-g9257959a6e5b-dirty #117 >> [   37.999038][  T621] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) >> [   37.999571][  T621] pstate: 60400005 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS >> BTYPE=--) >> [   38.000344][  T621] pc : increase_ab+0xcc/0xe70 [mymod] >> [   38.000882][  T621] lr : increase_ab+0xcc/0xe70 [mymod] >> [   38.001416][  T621] sp : ffff800008b4be40 >> [   38.001822][  T621] x29: ffff800008b4be40 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: >> 0000000000000000 >> [   38.002605][  T621] x26: 0000000000000000 x25: 0000000000000000 x24: >> 0000000000000000 >> [   38.003385][  T621] x23: ffffd9930c698190 x22: ffff800008a0ba38 x21: >> 0000000000000001 >> [   38.004174][  T621] x20: ffffffffffffefff x19: ffffd9930c69a580 x18: >> 0000000000000000 >> [   38.004955][  T621] x17: 0000000000000000 x16: ffffd9933011bd38 x15: >> ffffffffffffffff >> [   38.005754][  T621] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 205d313236542020 x12: >> ffffd99332175b80 >> [   38.006538][  T621] x11: 0000000000000003 x10: 0000000000000001 x9 : >> ffffd9933022a9d8 >> [   38.007325][  T621] x8 : 00000000000bffe8 x7 : c0000000ffff7fff x6 : >> ffffd993320b5b40 >> [   38.008124][  T621] x5 : ffff0001f7d1c708 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : >> 0000000000000000 >> [   38.008912][  T621] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : >> 0000000000000015 >> [   38.009709][  T621] Call trace: >> [   38.010035][  T621]  increase_ab+0xcc/0xe70 [mymod] >> [   38.010539][  T621]  kthread+0xdc/0xf0 >> [   38.010927][  T621]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 >> [   38.011370][  T621] Code: 17ffffe0 90000020 91044000 9400000d (d4210000) >> [   38.012067][  T621] ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- > Is this arm64 or something? You seem to have forgotten to mention what > platform you're using. > Sorry for the late reply. We tested both x86 and arm64, and the problem is only encountered under arm64. -- With Best Regards, Baokun Li .