Thanks Eric and Yuchung for taking care of the patch. I will test few more TFO cases as well once this patch is built in cero. Thanks, Ketan On Jan 14, 2013 9:37 AM, "Eric Dumazet" wrote: > > Quite frankly I would just remove the BUG_ON() > > diff --git a/net/core/request_sock.c b/net/core/request_sock.c > index c31d9e8..4425148 100644 > --- a/net/core/request_sock.c > +++ b/net/core/request_sock.c > @@ -186,8 +186,6 @@ void reqsk_fastopen_remove(struct sock *sk, struct request_sock *req, > struct fastopen_queue *fastopenq = > inet_csk(lsk)->icsk_accept_queue.fastopenq; > > - BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&sk->sk_lock.slock) && !sock_owned_by_user(sk)); > - > tcp_sk(sk)->fastopen_rsk = NULL; > spin_lock_bh(&fastopenq->lock); > fastopenq->qlen--; > > > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> >> Oh well yes, this doesnt quite work on !SMP. >> >> And this kind of bug is frequent.... >> >> See following example : >> >> commit b9980cdcf2524c5fe15d8cbae9c97b3ed6385563 >> Author: Hugh Dickins >> Date: Wed Feb 8 17:13:40 2012 -0800 >> >> mm: fix UP THP spin_is_locked BUGs >> >> Fix CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y CONFIG_SMP=n CONFIG_DEBUG_VM=y >> CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK=n kernel: spin_is_locked() is then always false, >> and so triggers some BUGs in Transparent HugePage codepaths. >> >> asm-generic/bug.h mentions this problem, and provides a WARN_ON_SMP(x); >> but being too lazy to add VM_BUG_ON_SMP, BUG_ON_SMP, WARN_ON_SMP_ONCE, >> VM_WARN_ON_SMP_ONCE, just test NR_CPUS != 1 in the existing VM_BUG_ONs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins >> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli >> Cc: >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton >> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds >> >> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c >> index b3ffc21..91d3efb 100644 >> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c >> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c >> @@ -2083,7 +2083,7 @@ static void collect_mm_slot(struct mm_slot *mm_slot) >> { >> struct mm_struct *mm = mm_slot->mm; >> >> - VM_BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&khugepaged_mm_lock)); >> + VM_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS != 1 && !spin_is_locked(&khugepaged_mm_lock)); >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >>> >>> On 2013-01-13 7:03 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: >>> > I suspect a bug in the spin_is_locked() implementation on your arch, as >>> > he socket lock should be held at this point. >>> I don't think this is an arch implementation bug, this probably happens >>> on all !SMP systems. See this bit from include/linux/spinlock_up.h: >>> >>> #define arch_spin_is_locked(lock) ((void)(lock), 0) >>> >>> - Felix >>> >> >