Re: [BUG] ODEBUG: assert_init not available (active state 0)

[Chris Bainbridge <chris.bainbridge@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 02:18:22AM +0000, Zheng, Lv wrote:
> 
> In fact, I don't understand what your report is.
> What did you mean by referring the following commit:
> >     ACPICA: Events: Enhance acpi_ev_execute_reg_method() to ensure no _REG
> > evaluations can happen during OS early boot stages
> Was this a bisection result for an issue?
> And what was the issue?

Yes it was a bisection result for the ODEBUG errors.

> If the issue is the following warning messages:
> > [   34.512758] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [   34.512765] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 4975 at lib/debugobjects.c:263
> > debug_print_object+0x85/0xa0()
> > [   34.512770] ODEBUG: assert_init not available (active state 0) object type:
> > timer_list hint: stub_timer+0x0/0x20
> > [   34.512772] Modules linked in:
> > [   34.512774] CPU: 0 PID: 4975 Comm: systemd Not tainted 4.4.0-rc7+ #353
> > [   34.512776] Hardware name: Apple Inc. MacBookPro10,2/Mac-
> > AFD8A9D944EA4843, BIOS MBP102.88Z.0106.B0A.1509130955 09/13/2015
> > [   34.512779]  ffffffff81f9b41c ffff880227a1bdb0 ffffffff814ec829
> > ffff880227a1bdf8
> > [   34.512782]  ffff880227a1bde8 ffffffff810cd831 ffff880227a1be90
> > ffffffff822514c0
> > [   34.512785]  ffffffff81f9b4c2 ffffffff8327e288 00007f29190ba700
> > ffff880227a1be48
> > [   34.512786] Call Trace:
> > [   34.512790]  [<ffffffff814ec829>] dump_stack+0x4b/0x72
> > [   34.512793]  [<ffffffff810cd831>] warn_slowpath_common+0x81/0xc0
> > [   34.512795]  [<ffffffff810cd8b7>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x47/0x50
> > [   34.512798]  [<ffffffff811398c2>] ? do_init_timer+0x52/0x60
> > [   34.512800]  [<ffffffff8150a015>] debug_print_object+0x85/0xa0
> > [   34.512802]  [<ffffffff81139830>] ?
> > trace_event_raw_event_tick_stop+0x100/0x100
> > [   34.512805]  [<ffffffff8150ac38>] debug_object_assert_init+0xf8/0x130
> > [   34.512807]  [<ffffffff8111a5bd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> > [   34.512810]  [<ffffffff8113afdf>] del_timer+0x1f/0x70
> > [   34.512813]  [<ffffffff811c2331>] laptop_sync_completion+0x61/0x100
> > [   34.512815]  [<ffffffff811c22d0>] ? laptop_io_completion+0x30/0x30
> > [   34.512819]  [<ffffffff812569cf>] sys_sync+0x7f/0x90
> > [   34.512824]  [<ffffffff81b88e17>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x12/0x6f
> > [   34.512825] ---[ end trace 8fe52cbaccc47e66 ]---
> 
> Our investigation result shows this is caused by a multiple deletion on the same Linux kernel timer.
> And the commit you reported shouldn't be the culprit.
> So it looks to me like a wrong bisection result if it was a bisection result.

I've checked again and the bisect result is correct. It could be that
the issue was always there, but this error is new on my system at least.

> While the following commit may trigger such breakage:
> >     ACPICA: Parser: Fix for SuperName method invocation
> So I think you need to test again after reverting this patch.
> The patch is actually reverted in ACPICA 20160212 release.
> You can use the following branch where ACPICA 20160212 release is applied:
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/?h=acpica-test
> test it again to confirm if such breakage still can be seen.

That branch also gives the ODEBUG error.

> If the issue is some graphical glitches.
> As I said, the commit is just a part of whole series that try to make Linux ACPICA initialization sequences correctly ordered.
> It, along with other patches try to make Linux working as spec compliant (also proven by Windows behavior).
> So you really need to apply more patches on top of acpica-test branch to confirm again.
> For example, patches from this series:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg63550.html

Patch series does not apply cleanly (3 4 5 6 12 14 fail)

> Especially this one:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg63558.html

No change, ODEBUG error still occurs.


To sum up test results:

v4.4-rc7-48-g849c25719ac6
	- ok

v4.4-rc7-49-gefaed9be998b
	- odebug error

acpia-test
	- odebug error

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg63550.html
	- patch series does not apply cleanly (3 4 5 6 12 14 fail)

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg63558.html (patch7)
	- odebug error