Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:50:00 +0800 | Subject | Re: Locking Problem in 2.6.33-rc5 | From | Américo Wang <> |
| |
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Larry Finger wrote: >> On suspend to RAM, I get the following recursive locking message: >> >> ============================================= >> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] >> 2.6.33-rc5-Linus-dirty #173 >> --------------------------------------------- >> sh/3488 is trying to acquire lock: >> (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81167413>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70 >> >> but task is already holding lock: >> (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff8116771d>] sysfs_get_active_two+0x3d/0x60 >> >> other info that might help us debug this: >> 4 locks held by sh/3488: >> #0: (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81165b7f>] >> sysfs_write_file+0x3f/0x160 >> #1: (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff8116771d>] sysfs_get_active_two+0x3d/0x60 >> #2: (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81167702>] sysfs_get_active_two+0x22/0x60 >> #3: (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81271517>] >> cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xe7/0x480 >> >> stack backtrace: >> Pid: 3488, comm: sh Not tainted 2.6.33-rc5-Linus-dirty #173 >> Call Trace: >> [<ffffffff8107c36b>] __lock_acquire+0xf6b/0x1d30 >> [<ffffffff81078e9f>] ? lockdep_init_map+0x5f/0x5d0 >> [<ffffffff8107d1cb>] lock_acquire+0x9b/0x120 >> [<ffffffff81167413>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70 >> [<ffffffff81166ba3>] sysfs_deactivate+0xc3/0x110 >> [<ffffffff81167413>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70 >> [<ffffffff81167413>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70 >> [<ffffffff81165206>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x56/0x80 >> [<ffffffff8116895f>] sysfs_remove_group+0x4f/0xf0 >> [<ffffffff8127152b>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xfb/0x480 >> [<ffffffff8107a8dd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x14d/0x190 >> [<ffffffff8107a92d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 >> [<ffffffff8126e314>] __cpufreq_governor+0x94/0x160 >> [<ffffffff8126f84f>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x11f/0x180 >> [<ffffffff8126fc66>] store_scaling_governor+0xc6/0x200 >> [<ffffffff81270530>] ? handle_update+0x0/0x10 >> [<ffffffff8126f702>] store+0x62/0x90 >> [<ffffffff81165c21>] sysfs_write_file+0xe1/0x160 >> [<ffffffff8110b0c8>] vfs_write+0xb8/0x180 >> [<ffffffff8110b26c>] sys_write+0x4c/0x80 >> [<ffffffff81002dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > Does the patch at http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/70461/ fix it? >
It is not related with this bug, IMO.
This bug was reported at least 3 times recently, Eric sent a patch for this bug, but amazingly that patch doesn't work, I will look for some time to dig more to see what is wrong with that patch.
Thanks. -- 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/
| |