lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [2.6.25-rc5-mm1] BUG: spinlock bad magic early during boot
    From
    Date
    On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 13:11 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:

    > > ACPI: Core revision 20070126
    > > +INFO: trying to register non-static key.
    > > +the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
    > > +turning off the locking correctness validator.
    > > +Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-rc5-mm1-testing #3
    > > + [<c014321e>] __lock_acquire+0x144/0xb6e
    > > + [<c010b1a2>] ? native_sched_clock+0xe0/0xff
    > > + [<c017fc57>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x89/0xc9
    > > + [<c0142ce0>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xe8/0x11d
    > > + [<c014404f>] lock_acquire+0x6a/0x90
    > > + [<c013b460>] ? down_trylock+0xc/0x27
    > > + [<c03016cb>] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x42/0x72
    > > + [<c013b460>] ? down_trylock+0xc/0x27
    > > + [<c013b460>] down_trylock+0xc/0x27
    > > + [<c021fa65>] acpi_os_wait_semaphore+0x67/0x13d
    > > + [<c023a39e>] acpi_ut_acquire_mutex+0x65/0xcf
    > > + [<c0230261>] acpi_ns_root_initialize+0x1a/0x289
    > > + [<c043ad54>] acpi_initialize_subsystem+0x47/0x6a
    > > + [<c043afd4>] acpi_early_init+0x57/0xf8
    > > + [<c04248ff>] start_kernel+0x34d/0x35a
    > > + [<c0424019>] i386_start_kernel+0x8/0xa
    > > + =======================
    > > ACPI: Checking initramfs for custom DSDT
    > > Parsing all Control Methods:
    > > Table [DSDT](id 0001) - 637 Objects with 63 Devices 160 Methods 41
    > > Regions
    >
    > Hi Tim,
    >
    > Again, thanks for the excellent bug reporting.
    >
    > This is actually a different problem (and not my code again, thank
    > goodness). I think a few of these got fixed in current -mm. According
    > to Peter Z, these mean:
    >
    > > It means the lock_class_key ended up in non-static storage.
    > >
    > > In practise it often means you initialized a on-stack structure
    > > incorrectly. DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD() vs
    > > DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD_ONSTACK() for example.
    >
    > So, this looks like an on-stack ACPI structure that got initialized
    > wrongly. At least we already have those dudes on the cc. :)

    Actually looks like the semaphore thing again, its a spinlock inside of
    down_tylock().

    > But, this might also get fixed by reverting the patch as Linus just did.
    > It might just be best to wait for another -mm release and see how it
    > settles out.

    Looks like another of the semaphore thingies.. Does this go away once
    you apply the semaphore lockdep fixup from here:

    http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/12/63



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-03-17 13:27    [W:0.022 / U:2.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site