lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Locking Problem in 2.6.33-rc5
From
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-27 10:53    [W:0.066 / U:9.544 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site