lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: mmotm 2010-02-10 - lockdep whinge in ACPI code
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:11:44 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:17:41 PST, akpm@linux-foundation.org said:
> > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-02-10-16-17 has been uploaded to
> >
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
>
> Seen at boot:
>
> [ 0.207242] ACPI: (supports S0 S5)
> [ 0.207257] ACPI: Using IOAPIC for interrupt routing
> [ 0.335315]
> [ 0.335316] =============================================
> [ 0.335483] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 0.335572] 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210 #1
> [ 0.335658] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 0.335746] swapper/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 0.335834] (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812eb521>] __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999]
> [ 0.335999] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 0.335999] (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812eb513>] __driver_attach+0x39/0x80
> [ 0.335999]
> [ 0.335999] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 0.335999] 1 lock held by swapper/1:
> [ 0.335999] #0: (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812eb513>] __driver_attach+0x39/0x80
> [ 0.335999]
> [ 0.335999] stack backtrace:
> [ 0.335999] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210 #1
> [ 0.335999] Call Trace:
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81063b47>] __lock_acquire+0xc77/0xcee
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81061fad>] ? mark_lock+0x2d/0x22c
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81063c89>] lock_acquire+0xcb/0xe8
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff810621fe>] ? mark_held_locks+0x52/0x70
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81568c9d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5c/0x5aa
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff815583f8>] ? klist_next+0x24/0xd7
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb4da>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81569291>] mutex_lock_nested+0x34/0x39
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb4da>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb4da>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eaa43>] bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x89
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb28a>] driver_attach+0x19/0x1b
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eaed5>] bus_add_driver+0xb4/0x203
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb833>] driver_register+0xb8/0x129
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81231604>] acpi_bus_register_driver+0x3e/0x40
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b45094>] acpi_ec_init+0x37/0x55
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b44ef1>] acpi_init+0x115/0x12a
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b44ddc>] ? acpi_init+0x0/0x12a
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff810001ef>] do_one_initcall+0x59/0x14e
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b26655>] kernel_init+0x14d/0x1a3
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81003354>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff8156b0c0>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b26508>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x1a3
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81003350>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
> [ 0.340036] ACPI: EC: GPE = 0x11, I/O: command/status = 0x934, data = 0x930
>

driver_attach() got converted from sem to mutex in linux-next. So this
is probably an old bug which just got exposed.

Or maybe not. Thomas, has that patch been in some other tree (rt?) for
a while? If so, was this bug observed in that tree? If not, it might
be new.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-11 06:31    [W:0.091 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site