Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9398] New: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

(switched to email.  Please reply via emailed reply-to-all, not via the
bugzilla web interface).

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:56:13 -0800 (PST)
bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:

> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9398
> 
>            Summary: BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
>            Product: Other
>            Version: 2.5
>      KernelVersion: 2.6.23.8
>           Platform: All
>         OS/Version: Linux
>               Tree: Mainline
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P1
>          Component: Other
>         AssignedTo: other_other@kernel-bugs.osdl.org
>         ReportedBy: cijoml@volny.cz
> 
> 
> Most recent kernel where this bug did not occur: 2.6.23.0

Ow.  Are you sure?  This is a regression which was added into the 2.6.23
stable tree?

> Distribution: Debian stable
> Hardware Environment: Pentium M laptop
> Software Environment: Debian stable
> Problem Description:
> 
> Steps to reproduce:
> 
> i2c-adapter i2c-5: SMBus Quick command not supported, can't probe for chips
> i2c-adapter i2c-6: SMBus Quick command not supported, can't probe for chips
> pcmcia: Detected deprecated PCMCIA ioctl usage from process: discover.
> pcmcia: This interface will soon be removed from the kernel; please expect
> breakage unless you upgrade to new tools.
> pcmcia: see http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/pcmcia/pcmcia.html for
> details.
> eth0: link down
> ieee80211_crypt: registered algorithm 'TKIP'
> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
>  [<c0140bf4>] softlockup_tick+0x90/0xaf
>  [<c0120a17>] update_process_times+0x32/0x54
>  [<c012edfd>] tick_periodic+0x6e/0x78
>  [<c012ee16>] tick_handle_periodic+0xf/0x5d
>  [<c0126390>] insert_work+0x59/0x5c
>  [<c012ef3c>] tick_do_broadcast+0x1f/0x3f
>  [<c012f05a>] tick_do_periodic_broadcast+0x1a/0x31
>  [<c012f08c>] tick_handle_periodic_broadcast+0x1b/0x5b
>  [<c01272fb>] __rcu_process_callbacks+0x112/0x170
>  [<c0106e83>] timer_interrupt+0x34/0x3d
>  [<c0140e66>] handle_IRQ_event+0x1a/0x3f
>  [<c01420df>] handle_level_irq+0x77/0xd0
>  [<c01061c5>] do_IRQ+0x75/0x8c
>  [<c0220d76>] acpi_hw_register_write+0x11b/0x14b
>  [<c0104713>] common_interrupt+0x23/0x28
>  [<c0110000>] mc_sysdev_remove+0x2b/0x4b
>  [<c0232ddf>] acpi_processor_idle+0x22f/0x398
>  [<c0102344>] cpu_idle+0x43/0x71
>  [<c03d29de>] start_kernel+0x250/0x255
>  [<c03d2317>] unknown_bootoption+0x0/0x195
>  =======================

Looks like acpi_hw_register_write() has locked up.  Or someone is
continuously calling acpi_hw_register_write().

I assume that the mc_sysdev_remove() in there is just stack garbage.  To
confirm this could you please set CONFIG_MICROCODE=n and retest?

Also, it would be interesting to test whether we have introduced this bug
into 2.6.24-rc2 (or -rc3, if it's out).

Thanks.