From: hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp
To: robert.richter@amd.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: oprofile? lockdep warning from 2.6.27-rc1-mm1
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:28:42 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7045.1217680122@jrobl> (raw)
Hello,
While I was testing my filesystem module on 2.6.27-rc1-mm1, I got this
message from oprofile. Is this a known problem, or did I miss something?
sync_buffer() is the one in drivers/oprofile/buffer_sync.c instead of
fs/buffer.c.
Junjiro R. Okajima
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ sudo opcontrol --setup --vmlinux=/home/jro/transparent/linux-2.6.27-rc1-mm1/D/vmlinux
+ sudo opcontrol --reset
+ sudo opcontrol --start
Using default event: GLOBAL_POWER_EVENTS:100000:1:1:1
Using 2.6+ OProfile kernel interface.
Reading module info.
Daemon started.
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.27-rc1-mm1jrousD #1
-------------------------------------------------------
events/0/7 is trying to acquire lock:
(&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c02d6500>] sync_buffer+0xe7/0x3c9
but task is already holding lock:
(buffer_mutex){--..}, at: [<c02d6445>] sync_buffer+0x2c/0x3c9
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #3 (buffer_mutex){--..}:
[<c01427d7>] __lock_acquire+0x1195/0x128d
[<c014296e>] lock_acquire+0x9f/0xb9
[<c0369f33>] mutex_lock_nested+0xbd/0x39f
[<c02d6445>] sync_buffer+0x2c/0x3c9
[<c02d6170>] wq_sync_buffer+0x3e/0x5c
[<c012ff4a>] run_workqueue+0x128/0x226
[<c0130b0c>] worker_thread+0x72/0xa7
[<c0133217>] kthread+0x37/0x59
[<c0103e37>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #2 (&(&b->work)->work){--..}:
[<c01427d7>] __lock_acquire+0x1195/0x128d
[<c014296e>] lock_acquire+0x9f/0xb9
[<c012ff45>] run_workqueue+0x123/0x226
[<c0130b0c>] worker_thread+0x72/0xa7
[<c0133217>] kthread+0x37/0x59
[<c0103e37>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #1 (events){--..}:
[<c01427d7>] __lock_acquire+0x1195/0x128d
[<c014296e>] lock_acquire+0x9f/0xb9
[<c01306ac>] flush_work+0x51/0xd2
[<c0130bda>] schedule_on_each_cpu+0x99/0xbf
[<c0166266>] lru_add_drain_all+0xd/0xf
[<c01703a6>] __mlock_vma_pages_range+0x44/0x294
[<c01706eb>] mlock_fixup+0xf5/0x1c3
[<c0170832>] do_mlockall+0x79/0x8d
[<c0170b7d>] sys_mlockall+0x74/0x9e
[<c0103151>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}:
[<c01425fa>] __lock_acquire+0xfb8/0x128d
[<c014296e>] lock_acquire+0x9f/0xb9
[<c036a77e>] down_read+0x3d/0x74
[<c02d6500>] sync_buffer+0xe7/0x3c9
[<c02d6170>] wq_sync_buffer+0x3e/0x5c
[<c012ff4a>] run_workqueue+0x128/0x226
[<c0130b0c>] worker_thread+0x72/0xa7
[<c0133217>] kthread+0x37/0x59
[<c0103e37>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
3 locks held by events/0/7:
#0: (events){--..}, at: [<c012fefc>] run_workqueue+0xda/0x226
#1: (&(&b->work)->work){--..}, at: [<c012ff22>] run_workqueue+0x100/0x226
#2: (buffer_mutex){--..}, at: [<c02d6445>] sync_buffer+0x2c/0x3c9
stack backtrace:
Pid: 7, comm: events/0 Not tainted 2.6.27-rc1-mm1jrousD #1
[<c013fb3b>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x68/0x71
[<c013f1ce>] ? print_circular_bug_entry+0x43/0x4b
[<c01425fa>] __lock_acquire+0xfb8/0x128d
[<c0236cc4>] ? debug_smp_processor_id+0x28/0xdc
[<c013e7ed>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0xd
[<c014296e>] lock_acquire+0x9f/0xb9
[<c02d6500>] ? sync_buffer+0xe7/0x3c9
[<c036a77e>] down_read+0x3d/0x74
[<c02d6500>] ? sync_buffer+0xe7/0x3c9
[<c02d6500>] sync_buffer+0xe7/0x3c9
[<c02d6170>] wq_sync_buffer+0x3e/0x5c
[<c012ff22>] ? run_workqueue+0x100/0x226
[<c012ff4a>] run_workqueue+0x128/0x226
[<c012ff22>] ? run_workqueue+0x100/0x226
[<c02d6132>] ? wq_sync_buffer+0x0/0x5c
[<c0130b0c>] worker_thread+0x72/0xa7
[<c01334d6>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x3a
[<c0130a9a>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0xa7
[<c0133217>] kthread+0x37/0x59
[<c01331e0>] ? kthread+0x0/0x59
[<c0103e37>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
=======================
Using log file /var/lib/oprofile/oprofiled.log
Profiler running.
next reply other threads:[~2008-08-02 12:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-02 12:28 hooanon05 [this message]
[not found] ` <20080805110649.GJ811@erda.amd.com>
2008-08-05 11:29 ` oprofile? lockdep warning from 2.6.27-rc1-mm1 hooanon05
2009-01-26 15:02 ` Robert Richter
2009-01-28 17:06 ` hooanon05
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=7045.1217680122@jrobl \
--to=hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robert.richter@amd.com \
/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.