public inbox for linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>
Cc: michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu,
	arjan@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, robert.moore@intel.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.17-mm1 - possible recursive locking detected
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:59:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060621215946.5d27e1f1.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CFF307C98FEABE47A452B27C06B85BB6CF0CF1@hdsmsx411.amr.corp.intel.com>

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:28:56 -0400
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com> wrote:

> >It looks like an ACPI problem.
> 
> Thanks for the note, and the .config, I reproduced it here.
> 
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP complains about this sequence:
> 
> ...
> 	<presumed previous acquire/release acpi_gbl_hardware_lock>
> ...
> acpi_ev_gpe_detect()
> 	spin_lock_irqsave(acpi_gbl_gpe_lock,)
> 
> 	spin_lock_irqsave(acpi_gbl_hardware_lock,) <stack trace is on
> this acquire>
> 	spin_lock_irqrestore(acpi_gbl_hardware_lock,)
> 
> 	...
> 
> 	spin_lock_irqrestore(acpi_gbl_gpe_lock)
> 
> It complains about this only the 1st time, even though
> this same code sequence runs for every (subsequent) ACPI interrupt.
> 
> The intent of the arrangement is that acpi_gbl_hardware_lock is for very
> small critical sections around RMW hardware register access.
> It can be acquired with or without other locks held, but
> nothing else is acquired when it is held.
> 
> Nothing jumps out at me as incorrect above, so 
> at this point it looks like a CONFIG_LOCKDEP artifact --
> but lets ask the experts:-)

Yes, lockdep uses the callsite of spin_lock_init() to detect the "type" of
a lock.

But the ACPI obfuscation layers use the same spin_lock_init() site to
initialise two not-the-same locks, so lockdep decides those two locks are
of the same "type" and gets confused.

We had earlier decided to remove that ACPI code which kmallocs a single
spinlock.  When that's done, lockdep will become unconfused.

AFACIT it's all used for just two statically allocated locks anwyay.

  reply	other threads:[~2006-06-22  5:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-06-22  4:28 2.6.17-mm1 - possible recursive locking detected Brown, Len
2006-06-22  4:59 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2006-06-22  7:20   ` [patch] ACPI: reduce code size, clean up, fix validator message Ingo Molnar
2006-06-22 14:31     ` Michal Piotrowski
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-06-22  7:40 2.6.17-mm1 - possible recursive locking detected Brown, Len
2006-06-22  7:49 ` Andrew Morton
2006-06-22  7:51 Brown, Len
2006-06-22  7:57 ` Andrew Morton

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=20060621215946.5d27e1f1.akpm@osdl.org \
    --to=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=robert.moore@intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox