Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:50:09 +0530 | From | Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <> | Subject | Re: [BUG] 2.6.28-git LOCKDEP: Possible recursive rq->lock |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> [2009-01-07 14:12:43]:
> On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 17:59 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > > > ============================================= > > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > > 2.6.28-autotest-tip-sv #1 > > --------------------------------------------- > > klogd/5062 is trying to acquire lock: > > (&rq->lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff8022aca2>] task_rq_lock+0x45/0x7e > > > > but task is already holding lock: > > (&rq->lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff805f7354>] schedule+0x158/0xa31 > > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > 1 lock held by klogd/5062: > > #0: (&rq->lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff805f7354>] schedule+0x158/0xa31 > > > > stack backtrace: > > Pid: 5062, comm: klogd Not tainted 2.6.28-autotest-tip-sv #1 > > Call Trace: > > [<ffffffff80259ef1>] __lock_acquire+0xeb9/0x16a4 > > [<ffffffff8025a6c0>] ? __lock_acquire+0x1688/0x16a4 > > [<ffffffff8025a761>] lock_acquire+0x85/0xa9 > > [<ffffffff8022aca2>] ? task_rq_lock+0x45/0x7e > > [<ffffffff805fa4d4>] _spin_lock+0x31/0x66 > > [<ffffffff8022aca2>] ? task_rq_lock+0x45/0x7e > > [<ffffffff8022aca2>] task_rq_lock+0x45/0x7e > > [<ffffffff80233363>] try_to_wake_up+0x88/0x27a > > [<ffffffff80233581>] wake_up_process+0x10/0x12 > > [<ffffffff805f775c>] schedule+0x560/0xa31 > > I'd be most curious to know where in schedule we are.
ok, we are in sched.c:3777
double_unlock_balance(this_rq, busiest); if (active_balance) >>>>>>>>>>> wake_up_process(busiest->migration_thread);
} else
In active balance in newidle. This implies sched_mc was 2 at that time. let me trace this and debug further.
--Vaidy
| |