From: Ingo Molnar <mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org>
To: Dmitry Adamushko
<dmitry.adamushko-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
andeas.herrmann3-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org,
Peter Zijlstra
<a.p.zijlstra-/NLkJaSkS4VmR6Xm/wNWPw@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org>,
Andreas Mohr <andi-5+Cda9B46AM@public.gmane.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Kernel Testers List
<kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: [Bug #12100] resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:56:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090111145615.GA26173@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081219233006.GA17984-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org>
* Ingo Molnar <mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> * Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > This is in response to the following bug report:
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12100
> > Subject : resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L
> > Submitter : Andreas Mohr <andi-5+Cda9B46AM@public.gmane.org>
> > Date : 2008-11-25 08:48 (19 days old)
> > Handled-By : Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>
> applied to tip/x86/microcode, thanks Dmitry!
>
> The fix looks right but somewhat intrusive in scope, so i'm a bit
> reluctant to push it towards .28 straight away - without having feedback
> in the bugzilla. If feedback is positive (the bug reported there goes
> away completely) we can cherry-pick it over into x86/urgent, ok? And in
> any case i've marked it as a -stable backport for .28.1.
hm, -tip testing just found this microcode locking lockdep splat:
[ 48.004158] SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
[ 48.342853] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
[ 48.344288] CPU1 attaching NULL sched-domain.
[ 48.354696] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
[ 48.361215] device: 'cpu1': device_unregister
[ 48.364231] device: 'cpu1': device_create_release
[ 48.368138]
[ 48.368139] =======================================================
[ 48.372039] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 48.372039] 2.6.29-rc1-tip-00901-g9699183-dirty #15577
[ 48.372039] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 48.372039] S99local/3496 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 48.372039] (microcode_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0118489>] microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] but task is already holding lock:
[ 48.372039] (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}, at: [<c012f508>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x1f/0x47
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] -> #1 (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}:
[ 48.372039] [<c014d3f1>] validate_chain+0x8e9/0xb94
[ 48.372039] [<c014dd03>] __lock_acquire+0x667/0x6e1
[ 48.372039] [<c014ddda>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6fac3>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x170
[ 48.372039] [<c012f552>] get_online_cpus+0x22/0x34
[ 48.372039] [<c013ce08>] work_on_cpu+0x50/0x8a
[ 48.372039] [<c0118465>] microcode_init_cpu+0x25/0x32
[ 48.372039] [<c0118699>] mc_sysdev_add+0x91/0x9b
[ 48.372039] [<c04cbd09>] sysdev_driver_register+0x9b/0xea
[ 48.372039] [<c0fb68e0>] microcode_init+0x8a/0xe4
[ 48.372039] [<c010106a>] do_one_initcall+0x6a/0x16e
[ 48.372039] [<c0fa952d>] kernel_init+0x115/0x166
[ 48.372039] [<c0103737>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[ 48.372039] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] -> #0 (microcode_mutex){--..}:
[ 48.372039] [<c014d0fc>] validate_chain+0x5f4/0xb94
[ 48.372039] [<c014dd03>] __lock_acquire+0x667/0x6e1
[ 48.372039] [<c014ddda>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6fac3>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x170
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6ce38>] mc_cpu_callback+0xed/0xfa
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a48>] notifier_call_chain+0x2b/0x4a
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a98>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x13/0x15
[ 48.372039] [<c0142aab>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x13
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2925e>] _cpu_down+0x171/0x22a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2935a>] cpu_down+0x43/0x68
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2a27f>] store_online+0x2a/0x5e
[ 48.372039] [<c04cba85>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x28
[ 48.372039] [<c01d07d0>] sysfs_write_file+0xbd/0xe8
[ 48.372039] [<c01912c2>] vfs_write+0x91/0x138
[ 48.372039] [<c01917c8>] sys_write+0x40/0x65
[ 48.372039] [<c0102e55>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x35
[ 48.372039] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] 3 locks held by S99local/3496:
[ 48.372039] #0: (&buffer->mutex){--..}, at: [<c01d073d>] sysfs_write_file+0x2a/0xe8
[ 48.372039] #1: (cpu_add_remove_lock){--..}, at: [<c012f4b5>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x14/0x16
[ 48.372039] #2: (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}, at: [<c012f508>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x1f/0x47
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] stack backtrace:
[ 48.372039] Pid: 3496, comm: S99local Not tainted 2.6.29-rc1-tip-00901-g9699183-dirty #15577
[ 48.372039] Call Trace:
[ 48.372039] [<c014cafd>] print_circular_bug_tail+0xab/0xb6
[ 48.372039] [<c014d0fc>] validate_chain+0x5f4/0xb94
[ 48.372039] [<c0a710b4>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x34/0x41
[ 48.372039] [<c014dd03>] __lock_acquire+0x667/0x6e1
[ 48.372039] [<c014c508>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x120/0x15f
[ 48.372039] [<c014ddda>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] ? microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6fac3>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x170
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] ? microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] ? microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6ce38>] mc_cpu_callback+0xed/0xfa
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a48>] notifier_call_chain+0x2b/0x4a
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a98>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x13/0x15
[ 48.372039] [<c0142aab>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x13
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2925e>] _cpu_down+0x171/0x22a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2935a>] cpu_down+0x43/0x68
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2a27f>] store_online+0x2a/0x5e
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2a255>] ? store_online+0x0/0x5e
[ 48.372039] [<c04cba85>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x28
[ 48.372039] [<c01d07d0>] sysfs_write_file+0xbd/0xe8
[ 48.372039] [<c01d0713>] ? sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xe8
[ 48.372039] [<c01912c2>] vfs_write+0x91/0x138
[ 48.372039] [<c01917c8>] sys_write+0x40/0x65
[ 48.372039] [<c0102e55>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x35
[ 49.380693] device: 'cpu1': device_add
[ 49.384346] lockdep: fixing up alternatives.
[ 49.388142] SMP alternatives: switching to SMP code
config/full bootlog on request. Andreas, Dmitry, any ideas?
Ingo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>,
andeas.herrmann3@amd.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: [Bug #12100] resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:56:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090111145615.GA26173@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081219233006.GA17984@elte.hu>
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> * Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > This is in response to the following bug report:
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12100
> > Subject : resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L
> > Submitter : Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
> > Date : 2008-11-25 08:48 (19 days old)
> > Handled-By : Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
>
> applied to tip/x86/microcode, thanks Dmitry!
>
> The fix looks right but somewhat intrusive in scope, so i'm a bit
> reluctant to push it towards .28 straight away - without having feedback
> in the bugzilla. If feedback is positive (the bug reported there goes
> away completely) we can cherry-pick it over into x86/urgent, ok? And in
> any case i've marked it as a -stable backport for .28.1.
hm, -tip testing just found this microcode locking lockdep splat:
[ 48.004158] SMP alternatives: switching to UP code
[ 48.342853] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
[ 48.344288] CPU1 attaching NULL sched-domain.
[ 48.354696] CPU0 attaching NULL sched-domain.
[ 48.361215] device: 'cpu1': device_unregister
[ 48.364231] device: 'cpu1': device_create_release
[ 48.368138]
[ 48.368139] =======================================================
[ 48.372039] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 48.372039] 2.6.29-rc1-tip-00901-g9699183-dirty #15577
[ 48.372039] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 48.372039] S99local/3496 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 48.372039] (microcode_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0118489>] microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] but task is already holding lock:
[ 48.372039] (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}, at: [<c012f508>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x1f/0x47
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] -> #1 (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}:
[ 48.372039] [<c014d3f1>] validate_chain+0x8e9/0xb94
[ 48.372039] [<c014dd03>] __lock_acquire+0x667/0x6e1
[ 48.372039] [<c014ddda>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6fac3>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x170
[ 48.372039] [<c012f552>] get_online_cpus+0x22/0x34
[ 48.372039] [<c013ce08>] work_on_cpu+0x50/0x8a
[ 48.372039] [<c0118465>] microcode_init_cpu+0x25/0x32
[ 48.372039] [<c0118699>] mc_sysdev_add+0x91/0x9b
[ 48.372039] [<c04cbd09>] sysdev_driver_register+0x9b/0xea
[ 48.372039] [<c0fb68e0>] microcode_init+0x8a/0xe4
[ 48.372039] [<c010106a>] do_one_initcall+0x6a/0x16e
[ 48.372039] [<c0fa952d>] kernel_init+0x115/0x166
[ 48.372039] [<c0103737>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[ 48.372039] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] -> #0 (microcode_mutex){--..}:
[ 48.372039] [<c014d0fc>] validate_chain+0x5f4/0xb94
[ 48.372039] [<c014dd03>] __lock_acquire+0x667/0x6e1
[ 48.372039] [<c014ddda>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6fac3>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x170
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6ce38>] mc_cpu_callback+0xed/0xfa
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a48>] notifier_call_chain+0x2b/0x4a
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a98>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x13/0x15
[ 48.372039] [<c0142aab>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x13
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2925e>] _cpu_down+0x171/0x22a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2935a>] cpu_down+0x43/0x68
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2a27f>] store_online+0x2a/0x5e
[ 48.372039] [<c04cba85>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x28
[ 48.372039] [<c01d07d0>] sysfs_write_file+0xbd/0xe8
[ 48.372039] [<c01912c2>] vfs_write+0x91/0x138
[ 48.372039] [<c01917c8>] sys_write+0x40/0x65
[ 48.372039] [<c0102e55>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x35
[ 48.372039] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] 3 locks held by S99local/3496:
[ 48.372039] #0: (&buffer->mutex){--..}, at: [<c01d073d>] sysfs_write_file+0x2a/0xe8
[ 48.372039] #1: (cpu_add_remove_lock){--..}, at: [<c012f4b5>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x14/0x16
[ 48.372039] #2: (&cpu_hotplug.lock){--..}, at: [<c012f508>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x1f/0x47
[ 48.372039]
[ 48.372039] stack backtrace:
[ 48.372039] Pid: 3496, comm: S99local Not tainted 2.6.29-rc1-tip-00901-g9699183-dirty #15577
[ 48.372039] Call Trace:
[ 48.372039] [<c014cafd>] print_circular_bug_tail+0xab/0xb6
[ 48.372039] [<c014d0fc>] validate_chain+0x5f4/0xb94
[ 48.372039] [<c0a710b4>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x34/0x41
[ 48.372039] [<c014dd03>] __lock_acquire+0x667/0x6e1
[ 48.372039] [<c014c508>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x120/0x15f
[ 48.372039] [<c014ddda>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] ? microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6fac3>] mutex_lock_nested+0xdc/0x170
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] ? microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] ? microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0118489>] microcode_fini_cpu+0x17/0x2b
[ 48.372039] [<c0a6ce38>] mc_cpu_callback+0xed/0xfa
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a48>] notifier_call_chain+0x2b/0x4a
[ 48.372039] [<c0142a98>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x13/0x15
[ 48.372039] [<c0142aab>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x13
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2925e>] _cpu_down+0x171/0x22a
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2935a>] cpu_down+0x43/0x68
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2a27f>] store_online+0x2a/0x5e
[ 48.372039] [<c0a2a255>] ? store_online+0x0/0x5e
[ 48.372039] [<c04cba85>] sysdev_store+0x20/0x28
[ 48.372039] [<c01d07d0>] sysfs_write_file+0xbd/0xe8
[ 48.372039] [<c01d0713>] ? sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xe8
[ 48.372039] [<c01912c2>] vfs_write+0x91/0x138
[ 48.372039] [<c01917c8>] sys_write+0x40/0x65
[ 48.372039] [<c0102e55>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x35
[ 49.380693] device: 'cpu1': device_add
[ 49.384346] lockdep: fixing up alternatives.
[ 49.388142] SMP alternatives: switching to SMP code
config/full bootlog on request. Andreas, Dmitry, any ideas?
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-11 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-19 23:15 [patch] Re: [Bug #12100] resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L Dmitry Adamushko
2008-12-19 23:15 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-12-19 23:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-19 23:30 ` Ingo Molnar
[not found] ` <20081219233006.GA17984-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org>
2009-01-11 14:56 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-01-11 14:56 ` Ingo Molnar
[not found] ` <20090111145615.GA26173-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org>
2009-01-11 19:58 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2009-01-11 19:58 ` Dmitry Adamushko
[not found] ` <b647ffbd0901111158r467f3358wa50f6a6e92d8129f-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2009-01-11 20:11 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-11 20:11 ` Mike Travis
2008-12-20 13:19 ` Andreas Mohr
2008-12-20 13:19 ` Andreas Mohr
[not found] ` <20081220131946.GA31366-p/qQFhXj4MHA4IYVXhSI5GHfThorsUsI@public.gmane.org>
2008-12-20 13:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-20 13:30 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20090111145615.GA26173@elte.hu \
--to=mingo-x9un+bfzkdi@public.gmane.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra-/NLkJaSkS4VmR6Xm/wNWPw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=andeas.herrmann3-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org \
--cc=andi-5+Cda9B46AM@public.gmane.org \
--cc=dmitry.adamushko-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org \
/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.