From: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@cam.ac.uk>
To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: JFFS2 on intel possible recursive locking detected
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:16:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D947EC4.4090504@cam.ac.uk> (raw)
Hi All,
This is very much a heads up with far too few details.
Ultimately this doesn't seem to cause any problems on the system
bar the following warning.
It's with the flash on an intel pxa271. Not sure exactly when
it first showed up, but has been around for a few months and
is still occurring with v2.6.39-rc1
It'll be a while before I have time to try chasing this down myself
unfortunately.
So has anyone else seen this?
[ 65.627241]
[ 65.627306] =============================================
[ 65.634237] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 65.639628] 2.6.38+ #20
[ 65.642067] ---------------------------------------------
[ 65.647453] jffs2_gcd_mtd2/404 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 65.652838] (&chip->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c01ff980>] get_chip+0xf8/0x204
[ 65.659757]
[ 65.659768] but task is already holding lock:
[ 65.665576] (&chip->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c01ff4d4>] chip_ready+0x2d0/0x2f4
[ 65.672654]
[ 65.672662] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 65.679173] 1 lock held by jffs2_gcd_mtd2/404:
[ 65.683602] #0: (&chip->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c01ff4d4>] chip_ready+0x2d0/0x2f4
[ 65.691123]
[ 65.691131] stack backtrace:
[ 65.695629] [<c0085220>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<c00be760>] (__lock_acquire+0xfbc/0x1930)
[ 65.704747] [<c00be760>] (__lock_acquire+0xfbc/0x1930) from [<c00bf134>] (lock_acquire+0x60/0x74)
[ 65.713650] [<c00bf134>] (lock_acquire+0x60/0x74) from [<c02a9dc8>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x4c/0x2f0)
[ 65.722602] [<c02a9dc8>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x4c/0x2f0) from [<c01ff980>] (get_chip+0xf8/0x204)
[ 65.731303] [<c01ff980>] (get_chip+0xf8/0x204) from [<c0200ab4>] (do_erase_oneblock+0x48/0x1f0)
[ 65.739996] [<c0200ab4>] (do_erase_oneblock+0x48/0x1f0) from [<c01feeb8>] (cfi_varsize_frob+0x198/0x250)
[ 65.749472] [<c01feeb8>] (cfi_varsize_frob+0x198/0x250) from [<c020242c>] (cfi_intelext_erase_varsize+0x2c/0x54)
[ 65.759627] [<c020242c>] (cfi_intelext_erase_varsize+0x2c/0x54) from [<c01f9a50>] (part_erase+0x70/0xc4)
[ 65.769147] [<c01f9a50>] (part_erase+0x70/0xc4) from [<c0185514>] (jffs2_erase_pending_blocks+0x644/0x7a0)
[ 65.778794] [<c0185514>] (jffs2_erase_pending_blocks+0x644/0x7a0) from [<c0183fc0>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x22c/0x810)
[ 65.789993] [<c0183fc0>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x22c/0x810) from [<c0185a04>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x168/0x1a0)
[ 65.801385] [<c0185a04>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x168/0x1a0) from [<c00ac238>] (kthread+0x80/0x88)
[ 65.810941] [<c00ac238>] (kthread+0x80/0x88) from [<c0080b64>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jic23@cam.ac.uk (Jonathan Cameron)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: JFFS2 on intel possible recursive locking detected
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:16:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D947EC4.4090504@cam.ac.uk> (raw)
Hi All,
This is very much a heads up with far too few details.
Ultimately this doesn't seem to cause any problems on the system
bar the following warning.
It's with the flash on an intel pxa271. Not sure exactly when
it first showed up, but has been around for a few months and
is still occurring with v2.6.39-rc1
It'll be a while before I have time to try chasing this down myself
unfortunately.
So has anyone else seen this?
[ 65.627241]
[ 65.627306] =============================================
[ 65.634237] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 65.639628] 2.6.38+ #20
[ 65.642067] ---------------------------------------------
[ 65.647453] jffs2_gcd_mtd2/404 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 65.652838] (&chip->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c01ff980>] get_chip+0xf8/0x204
[ 65.659757]
[ 65.659768] but task is already holding lock:
[ 65.665576] (&chip->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c01ff4d4>] chip_ready+0x2d0/0x2f4
[ 65.672654]
[ 65.672662] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 65.679173] 1 lock held by jffs2_gcd_mtd2/404:
[ 65.683602] #0: (&chip->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c01ff4d4>] chip_ready+0x2d0/0x2f4
[ 65.691123]
[ 65.691131] stack backtrace:
[ 65.695629] [<c0085220>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xec) from [<c00be760>] (__lock_acquire+0xfbc/0x1930)
[ 65.704747] [<c00be760>] (__lock_acquire+0xfbc/0x1930) from [<c00bf134>] (lock_acquire+0x60/0x74)
[ 65.713650] [<c00bf134>] (lock_acquire+0x60/0x74) from [<c02a9dc8>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x4c/0x2f0)
[ 65.722602] [<c02a9dc8>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x4c/0x2f0) from [<c01ff980>] (get_chip+0xf8/0x204)
[ 65.731303] [<c01ff980>] (get_chip+0xf8/0x204) from [<c0200ab4>] (do_erase_oneblock+0x48/0x1f0)
[ 65.739996] [<c0200ab4>] (do_erase_oneblock+0x48/0x1f0) from [<c01feeb8>] (cfi_varsize_frob+0x198/0x250)
[ 65.749472] [<c01feeb8>] (cfi_varsize_frob+0x198/0x250) from [<c020242c>] (cfi_intelext_erase_varsize+0x2c/0x54)
[ 65.759627] [<c020242c>] (cfi_intelext_erase_varsize+0x2c/0x54) from [<c01f9a50>] (part_erase+0x70/0xc4)
[ 65.769147] [<c01f9a50>] (part_erase+0x70/0xc4) from [<c0185514>] (jffs2_erase_pending_blocks+0x644/0x7a0)
[ 65.778794] [<c0185514>] (jffs2_erase_pending_blocks+0x644/0x7a0) from [<c0183fc0>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x22c/0x810)
[ 65.789993] [<c0183fc0>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_pass+0x22c/0x810) from [<c0185a04>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x168/0x1a0)
[ 65.801385] [<c0185a04>] (jffs2_garbage_collect_thread+0x168/0x1a0) from [<c00ac238>] (kthread+0x80/0x88)
[ 65.810941] [<c00ac238>] (kthread+0x80/0x88) from [<c0080b64>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
next reply other threads:[~2011-03-31 13:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-31 13:16 Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2011-03-31 13:16 ` JFFS2 on intel possible recursive locking detected Jonathan Cameron
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=4D947EC4.4090504@cam.ac.uk \
--to=jic23@cam.ac.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.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.