Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:10:40 +0100 | From | Takashi Iwai <> | Subject | Re: [bug] sound: INFO: possible recursive locking detected |
| |
At Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:39:31 +0100, I wrote: > > At Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:20:37 +0100, > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > FYI, -tip testing found this new lockdep workqueue locking assert > > triggered by the Intel HDA sound driver: (snip) > > [ 30.718689] ============================================= > > [ 30.718689] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > > [ 30.718689] 2.6.28-tip #2 > > [ 30.718689] --------------------------------------------- > > [ 30.718689] events/0/7 is trying to acquire lock: > > [ 30.718689] (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80281050>] flush_workqueue+0x0/0x90 > > [ 30.718689] > > [ 30.718689] but task is already holding lock: > > [ 30.718689] (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8028076a>] run_workqueue+0x14a/0x240 > > [ 30.718689] > > [ 30.718689] other info that might help us debug this: > > [ 30.718689] 2 locks held by events/0/7: > > [ 30.718689] #0: (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8028076a>] run_workqueue+0x14a/0x240 > > [ 30.718689] #1: (&wfc.work){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8028076a>] run_workqueue+0x14a/0x240 > > [ 30.718689] > > [ 30.718689] stack backtrace: > > [ 30.718689] Pid: 7, comm: events/0 Not tainted 2.6.28-tip #2 > > [ 30.718689] Call Trace: > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80295836>] validate_chain+0xc56/0x1340 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff802974e6>] __lock_acquire+0x376/0x610 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80297819>] lock_acquire+0x99/0xd0 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80281050>] ? flush_workqueue+0x0/0x90 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80281091>] flush_workqueue+0x41/0x90 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80281050>] ? flush_workqueue+0x0/0x90 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff802810f5>] flush_scheduled_work+0x15/0x20 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80c59794>] azx_clear_irq_pending+0x54/0x60 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80c599ec>] azx_free+0x10c/0x160 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80bae9ad>] ? snd_device_free+0x8d/0x100 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80c59a52>] azx_dev_free+0x12/0x20 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80bae9a1>] snd_device_free+0x81/0x100 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80baea89>] snd_device_free_all+0x69/0xa0 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80ba8a70>] snd_card_do_free+0x50/0xd0 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80ba9602>] snd_card_free+0xa2/0xc0 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff8061115f>] ? __delay+0xf/0x20 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80edbb6a>] azx_probe+0x38a/0x9f0 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80c5a240>] ? azx_send_cmd+0x0/0x130 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80c5a370>] ? azx_get_response+0x0/0x210 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80c59b70>] ? azx_attach_pcm_stream+0x0/0x1b0 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff802804d0>] ? do_work_for_cpu+0x0/0x30 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80634807>] local_pci_probe+0x17/0x20 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff802804e8>] do_work_for_cpu+0x18/0x30 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff802804d0>] ? do_work_for_cpu+0x0/0x30 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff802807bb>] run_workqueue+0x19b/0x240 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff8028076a>] ? run_workqueue+0x14a/0x240 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff802809cf>] worker_thread+0xaf/0x110 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80284e20>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80280920>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x110 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff802848e3>] kthread+0x53/0x80 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff8022c3aa>] child_rip+0xa/0x20 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff8022bcbe>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff80284890>] ? kthread+0x0/0x80 > > [ 30.718689] [<ffffffff8022c3a0>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
The backtrace implies that the probe callback is called in a workqueue. Is it right?
Takashi
| |