Re: [Xen-devel] [GIT PULL] (xen) stable/for-jens-3.14 : NFO: trying to register non-static key. the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/02/14 17:40, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On 11/02/14 17:07, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>
>> Tuesday, February 11, 2014, 4:56:50 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:52:15PM +0100, Sander Eikelenboom wrote:
>>>> Hi Konrad,
>>>>
>>>> Today decided to tryout another kernel RC and your pull request to Jens on 
>>>> top of it .. and I encoutered this one:
>>
>>> Thank you for testing!
>>
>>> Could you provide the .config file please?
>>
>> Attached
>>
>>> Did you see this _before_ the pull request with Jens? I presume
>>> not, but just double checking?
>>
>> Nope not too my knowledge (though it's a bit messy with things broken on 
>> 3.14 at the moment)
>>
>>> And lastly - what were you doing when you triggered this? Just launching
>>> a guest?
>>
>> Nope it triggers on guest shutdown ..
>>
>>
>>> CC-ing Roger and other folks who were on the patches.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [  438.029756] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
>>>> [  438.029759] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
>>>> [  438.029760] turning off the locking correctness validator.
>>>> [  438.029770] CPU: 3 PID: 9593 Comm: blkback.2.xvda Tainted: G        W   
>>>>  3.14.0-rc2-20140211-pcireset-net-btrevert-xenblock+ #1
>>>> [  438.029773] Hardware name: MSI MS-7640/890FXA-GD70 (MS-7640)  , BIOS 
>>>> V1.8B1 09/13/2010
>>>> [  438.029784]  ffff88005224c4f0 ffff88004e5d9b68 ffffffff81b808c4 
>>>> ffff88004ba2b510
>>>> [  438.029791]  0000000000000002 ffff88004e5d9c38 ffffffff81116eab 
>>>> ffff88004e5d9bf8
>>>> [  438.029798]  ffffffff81117b35 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 
>>>> ffffffff82cee570
>>>> [  438.029799] Call Trace:
>>>> [  438.029815]  [<ffffffff81b808c4>] dump_stack+0x46/0x58
>>>> [  438.029826]  [<ffffffff81116eab>] __lock_acquire+0x1c2b/0x2220
>>>> [  438.029833]  [<ffffffff81117b35>] ? lock_acquire+0xe5/0x150
>>>> [  438.029841]  [<ffffffff81117b0d>] lock_acquire+0xbd/0x150
>>>> [  438.029847]  [<ffffffff810e5965>] ? flush_work+0x5/0x290
>>>> [  438.029852]  [<ffffffff810e599d>] flush_work+0x3d/0x290
>>>> [  438.029856]  [<ffffffff810e5965>] ? flush_work+0x5/0x290
>>>> [  438.029863]  [<ffffffff81117b35>] ? lock_acquire+0xe5/0x150
>>>> [  438.029872]  [<ffffffff816fef01>] ? xen_blkif_schedule+0x1a1/0x8d0
>>>> [  438.029881]  [<ffffffff81b8ae0d>] ? 
>>>> _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x6d/0x90
>>>> [  438.029888]  [<ffffffff8111392b>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xfb/0x240
>>>> [  438.029894]  [<ffffffff81113a7d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>>>> [  438.029901]  [<ffffffff816fefe9>] xen_blkif_schedule+0x289/0x8d0
>>>> [  438.029907]  [<ffffffff8110d510>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x60/0x60
>>>> [  438.029913]  [<ffffffff81113a7d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>>>> [  438.029919]  [<ffffffff81b8ae21>] ? 
>>>> _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x81/0x90
>>>> [  438.029925]  [<ffffffff816fed60>] ? xen_blkif_be_int+0x40/0x40
>>>> [  438.029932]  [<ffffffff810ee374>] kthread+0xe4/0x100
>>>> [  438.029938]  [<ffffffff81b8afe0>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x50
>>>> [  438.029946]  [<ffffffff810ee290>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
>>>> [  438.029951]  [<ffffffff81b8c1fc>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>>> [  438.029958]  [<ffffffff810ee290>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't seem to serious .. but never the less :-)
> 
> Thanks for the report!
> 
> Does the following patch solve the problem?
> 
> ---
> commit c1460953d081c8a18ac9e84fe90f696cdceae105
> Author: Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Tue Feb 11 17:21:19 2014 +0100
> 
>     xen-blkback: init persistent_purge_work work_struct
>     
>     Do a dummy initialization of the persistent_purge_work
>     work_struct on xen_blkif_alloc, so that when flush_work is called on
>     shutdown the struct is initialized even if it hasn't been used.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c 
> b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> index 84973c6..3df7575 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c
> @@ -129,6 +129,17 @@ static struct xen_blkif *xen_blkif_alloc(domid_t domid)
>       blkif->free_pages_num = 0;
>       atomic_set(&blkif->persistent_gnt_in_use, 0);
>       atomic_set(&blkif->inflight, 0);
> +     /*
> +      * Init the work struct with a NULL function, this is done
> +      * so that flush_work doesn't complain when shutting down if
> +      * persistent_purge_work has not been used during the lifetime
> +      * of this blkback instance.
> +      *
> +      * NB: In purge_persistent_gnt we make sure that
> +      * persistent_purge_work is always correctly setup with a valid
> +      * function pointer before being scheduled.
> +      */
> +     INIT_WORK(&blkif->persistent_purge_work, NULL);

I think you should init this fully here and remove the other call to
INIT_WORK.

David

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel