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.
next prev parent 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