On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 19:22, Naresh Kamboju naresh.kamboju@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 19:01, Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
<trim>
My two cents, While running ssuite long running stress testing we have noticed deadlock.
So if you drop that, all works well? I'll go drop that from the queues now.
Let me drop that patch and test it again.
Crash log,
[ 1957.278399] ============================================ [ 1957.283717] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected [ 1957.289031] 5.13.2-rc1 #1 Not tainted [ 1957.292703] -------------------------------------------- [ 1957.298016] kworker/u8:7/236 is trying to acquire lock: [ 1957.303241] ffff8cc203f92c38 (&bfqd->lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: bfq_finish_requeue_request+0x55/0x500 [bfq] [ 1957.312643] [ 1957.312643] but task is already holding lock: [ 1957.318467] ffff8cc203f92c38 (&bfqd->lock){-.-.}-{2:2}, at: bfq_insert_requests+0x81/0x1750 [bfq] [ 1957.327334] [ 1957.327334] other info that might help us debug this: [ 1957.333852] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 1957.333852] [ 1957.339762] CPU0 [ 1957.342206] ---- [ 1957.344651] lock(&bfqd->lock); [ 1957.347873] lock(&bfqd->lock); [ 1957.351097] [ 1957.351097] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 1957.351097]
Also noticed on stable-rc 5.12.17-rc1.
Reported-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing lkft@linaro.org
ref: https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/3058868#L2922
ref: https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/3058423#L3125
- Naresh