lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Re: [Bug #12100] resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> * Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > This is in response to the following bug report:
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12100
> > Subject : resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L
> > Submitter : Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
> > Date : 2008-11-25 08:48 (19 days old)
> > Handled-By : Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
>
> applied to tip/x86/microcode, thanks Dmitry!
>
> The fix looks right but somewhat intrusive in scope, so i'm a bit
> reluctant to push it towards .28 straight away - without having feedback
> in the bugzilla. If feedback is positive (the bug reported there goes
> away completely) we can cherry-pick it over into x86/urgent, ok? And in
> any case i've marked it as a -stable backport for .28.1.

hm, -tip testing just found this microcode locking lockdep splat:

[ 48.004158] SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
[ 48.342853] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
[ 48.344288] CPU1 attaching NULL sched-domain.
[ 48.354696] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
[ 48.361215] device: 'cpu1': device_unregister
[ 48.364231] device: 'cpu1': device_create_release
[ 48.368138]
[ 48.368139] =======================================================
[ 48.372039] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 48.372039] 2.6.29-rc1-tip-00901-g9699183-dirty #15577
[ 48.372039] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 48.372039] S99local/3496 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 48.372039] (microcode_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0118489>] microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] but task is already holding lock:
[ 48.372039] (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}, at: [<c012f508>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x1f/0x47
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] -> #1 (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}:
[ 48.372039] [<c014d3f1>] validate_chain+0x8e9/0xb94
[ 48.372039] [<c014dd03>] __lock_acquire+0x667/0x6e1
[ 48.372039] [<c014ddda>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6fac3>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x170
[ 48.372039] [<c012f552>] get_online_cpus+0x22/0x34
[ 48.372039] [<c013ce08>] work_on_cpu+0x50/0x8a
[ 48.372039] [<c0118465>] microcode_init_cpu+0x25/0x32
[ 48.372039] [<c0118699>] mc_sysdev_add+0x91/0x9b
[ 48.372039] [<c04cbd09>] sysdev_driver_register+0x9b/0xea
[ 48.372039] [<c0fb68e0>] microcode_init+0x8a/0xe4
[ 48.372039] [<c010106a>] do_one_initcall+0x6a/0x16e
[ 48.372039] [<c0fa952d>] kernel_init+0x115/0x166
[ 48.372039] [<c0103737>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[ 48.372039] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] -> #0 (microcode_mutex){--..}:
[ 48.372039] [<c014d0fc>] validate_chain+0x5f4/0xb94
[ 48.372039] [<c014dd03>] __lock_acquire+0x667/0x6e1
[ 48.372039] [<c014ddda>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6fac3>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x170
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6ce38>] mc_cpu_callback+0xed/0xfa
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a48>] notifier_call_chain+0x2b/0x4a
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a98>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x13/0x15
[ 48.372039] [<c0142aab>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x13
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2925e>] _cpu_down+0x171/0x22a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2935a>] cpu_down+0x43/0x68
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2a27f>] store_online+0x2a/0x5e
[ 48.372039] [<c04cba85>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x28
[ 48.372039] [<c01d07d0>] sysfs_write_file+0xbd/0xe8
[ 48.372039] [<c01912c2>] vfs_write+0x91/0x138
[ 48.372039] [<c01917c8>] sys_write+0x40/0x65
[ 48.372039] [<c0102e55>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x35
[ 48.372039] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] 3 locks held by S99local/3496:
[ 48.372039] #0: (&buffer->mutex){--..}, at: [<c01d073d>] sysfs_write_file+0x2a/0xe8
[ 48.372039] #1: (cpu_add_remove_lock){--..}, at: [<c012f4b5>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x14/0x16
[ 48.372039] #2: (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}, at: [<c012f508>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x1f/0x47
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] stack backtrace:
[ 48.372039] Pid: 3496, comm: S99local Not tainted 2.6.29-rc1-tip-00901-g9699183-dirty #15577
[ 48.372039] Call Trace:
[ 48.372039] [<c014cafd>] print_circular_bug_tail+0xab/0xb6
[ 48.372039] [<c014d0fc>] validate_chain+0x5f4/0xb94
[ 48.372039] [<c0a710b4>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x34/0x41
[ 48.372039] [<c014dd03>] __lock_acquire+0x667/0x6e1
[ 48.372039] [<c014c508>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x120/0x15f
[ 48.372039] [<c014ddda>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] ? microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6fac3>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x170
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] ? microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] ? microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6ce38>] mc_cpu_callback+0xed/0xfa
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a48>] notifier_call_chain+0x2b/0x4a
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a98>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x13/0x15
[ 48.372039] [<c0142aab>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x13
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2925e>] _cpu_down+0x171/0x22a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2935a>] cpu_down+0x43/0x68
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2a27f>] store_online+0x2a/0x5e
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2a255>] ? store_online+0x0/0x5e
[ 48.372039] [<c04cba85>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x28
[ 48.372039] [<c01d07d0>] sysfs_write_file+0xbd/0xe8
[ 48.372039] [<c01d0713>] ? sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xe8
[ 48.372039] [<c01912c2>] vfs_write+0x91/0x138
[ 48.372039] [<c01917c8>] sys_write+0x40/0x65
[ 48.372039] [<c0102e55>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x35
[ 49.380693] device: 'cpu1': device_add
[ 49.384346] lockdep: fixing up alternatives.
[ 49.388142] SMP alternatives: switching to SMP code
config/full bootlog on request. Andreas, Dmitry, any ideas?

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-11 15:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans