All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Miles Lane <miles.lane@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc2-mm1 -- INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:58:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070809135834.b18ac717.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a44ae5cd0708091324w4f990d3fo364e01207d52200a@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:24:48 -0400
"Miles Lane" <miles.lane@gmail.com> wrote:

> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.23-rc2-mm1 #7
> -------------------------------------------------------
> kacpid/53 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (&ec->lock){--..}, at: [<c03031a7>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
>  (&dpc->work){--..}, at: [<c012689d>] run_workqueue+0xa0/0x182
> 
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
> 
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> 
> -> #2 (&dpc->work){--..}:
>        [<c0133d24>] __lock_acquire+0x9a6/0xb6f
>        [<c0133f4e>] lock_acquire+0x61/0x7d
>        [<c01268b2>] run_workqueue+0xb5/0x182
>        [<c01271a9>] worker_thread+0xb7/0xc2
>        [<c01296c4>] kthread+0x39/0x61
>        [<c0104913>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
>        [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> 
> -> #1 (kacpid){--..}:
>        [<c0133d24>] __lock_acquire+0x9a6/0xb6f
>        [<c0133f4e>] lock_acquire+0x61/0x7d
>        [<c0126f62>] flush_workqueue+0x2d/0x4f
>        [<c01e85e0>] acpi_os_wait_events_complete+0xd/0xf
>        [<c01ef605>] acpi_remove_gpe_handler+0x7b/0xdd
>        [<c0205981>] ec_remove_handlers+0x26/0x29
>        [<c02062b4>] acpi_ec_add+0x8f/0x13e
>        [<c0205477>] acpi_device_probe+0x3e/0xdb
>        [<c023c4c8>] driver_probe_device+0xd7/0x14d
>        [<c023c652>] __driver_attach+0x6a/0xa1
>        [<c023baaa>] bus_for_each_dev+0x36/0x5b
>        [<c023c32e>] driver_attach+0x14/0x16
>        [<c023bd7e>] bus_add_driver+0x70/0x16c
>        [<c023c82d>] driver_register+0x60/0x65
>        [<c020577b>] acpi_bus_register_driver+0x3a/0x3c
>        [<c04292e4>] acpi_ec_init+0x36/0x55
>        [<c0416650>] kernel_init+0xc5/0x20f
>        [<c0104913>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
>        [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> 
> -> #0 (&ec->lock){--..}:
>        [<c0133c44>] __lock_acquire+0x8c6/0xb6f
>        [<c0133f4e>] lock_acquire+0x61/0x7d
>        [<c0303006>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xbc/0x241
>        [<c03031a7>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
>        [<c0205bbd>] acpi_ec_transaction+0x65/0x1c1
>        [<c0205d44>] acpi_ec_gpe_query+0x2b/0xab
>        [<c01e8602>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x20/0x31
>        [<c01268b7>] run_workqueue+0xba/0x182
>        [<c01271a9>] worker_thread+0xb7/0xc2
>        [<c01296c4>] kthread+0x39/0x61
>        [<c0104913>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
>        [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> 2 locks held by kacpid/53:
>  #0:  (kacpid){--..}, at: [<c0126882>] run_workqueue+0x85/0x182
>  #1:  (&dpc->work){--..}, at: [<c012689d>] run_workqueue+0xa0/0x182
> 
> stack backtrace:
>  [<c0104c6a>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x12/0x25
>  [<c0105552>] show_trace+0xd/0x10
>  [<c0105656>] dump_stack+0x15/0x17
>  [<c0132580>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x5a/0x65
>  [<c0133c44>] __lock_acquire+0x8c6/0xb6f
>  [<c0133f4e>] lock_acquire+0x61/0x7d
>  [<c0303006>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xbc/0x241
>  [<c03031a7>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
>  [<c0205bbd>] acpi_ec_transaction+0x65/0x1c1
>  [<c0205d44>] acpi_ec_gpe_query+0x2b/0xab
>  [<c01e8602>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x20/0x31
>  [<c01268b7>] run_workqueue+0xba/0x182
>  [<c01271a9>] worker_thread+0xb7/0xc2
>  [<c01296c4>] kthread+0x39/0x61
>  [<c0104913>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
>  =======================

Presumably the new debugging patches in -mm
(workqueue-debug-flushing-deadlocks-with-lockdep.patch and
workqueue-debug-work-related-deadlocks-with-lockdep.patch) think they have
found a potential deadlock in ACPI.  I don't have time to pick through the
code to confirm that, but boy I'm good at adding cc's ;)



  reply	other threads:[~2007-08-09 21:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-08-09 20:24 2.6.23-rc2-mm1 -- INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected Miles Lane
2007-08-09 20:58 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2007-08-09 22:47   ` Alexey Starikovskiy
2007-08-10  9:47     ` Johannes Berg
2007-08-10  9:47       ` Johannes Berg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070809135834.b18ac717.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miles.lane@gmail.com \
    --cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.