Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:58:56 +0800 | Subject | Re: 2.6.33-rc3 -- INFO: possible recursive locking -- (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<c10d2941>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x3d/0x4f | From | Américo Wang <> |
| |
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 07:54:59AM -0500, Miles Lane wrote: > >[ 6967.926563] ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S3 > >[ 6967.956156] Disabling non-boot CPUs ... > >[ 6967.970401] > >[ 6967.970408] ============================================= > >[ 6967.970419] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > >[ 6967.970431] 2.6.33-rc2-git6 #27 > >[ 6967.970439] --------------------------------------------- > >[ 6967.970450] pm-suspend/22147 is trying to acquire lock: > >[ 6967.970460] (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<c10d2941>] > >sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x3d/0x4f > >[ 6967.970493] > >[ 6967.970497] but task is already holding lock: > >[ 6967.970506] (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<c10d4110>] > >sysfs_get_active_two+0x16/0x36 > >[ 6967.970531] > >[ 6967.970535] other info that might help us debug this: > >[ 6967.970547] 6 locks held by pm-suspend/22147: > >[ 6967.970556] #0: (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c10d2ff3>] > >sysfs_write_file+0x25/0xeb > >[ 6967.970584] #1: (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<c10d4110>] > >sysfs_get_active_two+0x16/0x36 > >[ 6967.970612] #2: (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<c10d411b>] > >sysfs_get_active_two+0x21/0x36 > >[ 6967.970639] #3: (pm_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c1056f00>] enter_state+0x26/0x114 > >[ 6967.970668] #4: (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c102ea10>] > >cpu_maps_update_begin+0xf/0x11 > >[ 6967.970697] #5: (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c102ea3e>] > >cpu_hotplug_begin+0x1d/0x40 > >[ 6967.970724] > >[ 6967.970728] stack backtrace: > >[ 6967.970740] Pid: 22147, comm: pm-suspend Not tainted 2.6.33-rc2-git6 #27 > >[ 6967.970751] Call Trace: > >[ 6967.970771] [<c12cc9bf>] ? printk+0xf/0x18 > >[ 6967.970791] [<c104dcdb>] __lock_acquire+0x817/0xb6d > >[ 6967.970812] [<c104cbb2>] ? mark_held_locks+0x43/0x5b > >[ 6967.970831] [<c104cf4c>] ? debug_check_no_locks_freed+0xfd/0x107 > >[ 6967.970851] [<c104ce1a>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x108/0x130 > >[ 6967.970871] [<c104e08d>] lock_acquire+0x5c/0x73 > >[ 6967.970890] [<c10d2941>] ? sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x3d/0x4f > >[ 6967.970910] [<c10d3ee6>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x9a/0xfe > >[ 6967.970929] [<c10d2941>] ? sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x3d/0x4f > >[ 6967.970953] [<c10d2941>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x3d/0x4f > >[ 6967.970974] [<c10d4c11>] sysfs_remove_group+0x52/0x81 > >[ 6967.970993] [<c12cab5d>] mc_cpu_callback+0x73/0x9a > >[ 6967.971014] [<c10427d0>] notifier_call_chain+0x51/0x78 > >[ 6967.971034] [<c104285c>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0xe/0x10 > >[ 6967.971054] [<c12c094b>] _cpu_down+0x7a/0x235 > >[ 6967.971074] [<c102eab9>] disable_nonboot_cpus+0x58/0xe0 > >[ 6967.971093] [<c1056e20>] suspend_devices_and_enter+0xb9/0x173 > >[ 6967.971094] [<c1056fa2>] enter_state+0xc8/0x114 > >[ 6967.971094] [<c1056855>] state_store+0x93/0xa7 > >[ 6967.971094] [<c10567c2>] ? state_store+0x0/0xa7 > >[ 6967.971094] [<c1140595>] kobj_attr_store+0x16/0x22 > >[ 6967.971094] [<c10d308e>] sysfs_write_file+0xc0/0xeb > >[ 6967.971094] [<c10d2fce>] ? sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xeb > >[ 6967.971094] [<c109511c>] vfs_write+0x80/0xdf > >[ 6967.971094] [<c109520f>] sys_write+0x3b/0x5d > >[ 6967.971094] [<c1002897>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36 > >[ 6967.973262] CPU 1 is now offline > >[ 6967.973271] lockdep: fixing up alternatives. > > Hmmm, does reverting commit 846f99749ab68b help? >
Of course it will help, but the problem is not that. That patch helps us to detect such a problem... I am still investigating. :-/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |