lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: "PM / wakeup: Show wakeup sources stats in sysfs" causes boot warnings
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:04 AM Tri Vo <trong@android.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 3:35 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Qian Cai (2019-08-13 14:32:56)
> > > The linux-next commit "PM / wakeup: Show wakeup sources stats in sysfs" [1]
> > > introduced some baddies during boot on several x86 servers. Reverted the commit
> > > fixed the issue.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190807014846.143949-4-trong@android.com/
> > >
> > > [ 39.195053][ T1] serio: i8042 KBD port at 0x60,0x64 irq 1
> > > [ 39.197347][ T1] kobject_add_internal failed for wakeup (error: -2 parent:
> > > serio0)
> > > [ 39.199845][ T1] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> > > [ 39.201582][ T1] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
> > > [ 39.203477][ T1] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > > [ 39.205399][ T1] CPU: 12 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.3.0-rc4-
> > > next-20190813 #3
> > > [ 39.207938][ T1] Hardware name: HP ProLiant XL420 Gen9/ProLiant XL420
> > > Gen9, BIOS U19 12/27/2015
> > > [ 39.210606][ T1] Call Trace:
> > > [ 39.210606][ T1] dump_stack+0x62/0x9a
> > > [ 39.210606][ T1] register_lock_class+0x95a/0x960
> > > [ 39.210606][ T1] ? __platform_driver_probe+0xcd/0x230
> > > [ 39.210606][ T1] ? __platform_create_bundle+0xc0/0xe0
> > > [ 39.210606][ T1] ? i8042_init+0x4ec/0x578
> > > [ 39.210606][ T1] ? do_one_initcall+0xfe/0x45a
> > > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x614/0x6a7
> > > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? kernel_init+0x11/0x138
> > > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
> > > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? is_dynamic_key+0xf0/0xf0
> > > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? rwlock_bug.part.0+0x60/0x60
> > > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? __debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x8e/0x250
> > > [ 39.219571][ T1] __lock_acquire.isra.13+0x5f/0x830
> > > [ 39.229491][ T1] ? __debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x152/0x250
> > > [ 39.229491][ T1] lock_acquire+0x107/0x220
> > > [ 39.229491][ T1] ? __pm_relax.part.2+0x21/0xa0
> > > [ 39.229491][ T1] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x35/0x50
> > > [ 39.229491][ T1] ? __pm_relax.part.2+0x21/0xa0
> > > [ 39.229491][ T1] __pm_relax.part.2+0x21/0xa0
> > > [ 39.239588][ T1] wakeup_source_destroy.part.3+0x18/0x190
> > > [ 39.239588][ T1] wakeup_source_register+0x43/0x50
> >
> > We shouldn't call wakeup_source_destroy() from the error path in
> > wakeup_source_register() because that calls __pm_relax() and that takes
> > a lock that isn't initialized until wakeup_source_add() is called. Can
> > you try this patch?
>
> Right, that makes sense. Thanks for sending a fix, Stephen!
>
> What's the preferred procedure for merging this fix? Should we apply
> this commit on top of pm tree? Or should I resend a new version of the
> offending patch? Sorry, I'm still new to this.

I can apply this patch as a fix if it is resent with a proper changelog.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-14 01:10    [W:0.016 / U:23.168 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site