Re: suspend-related lockdep warning

Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-12-06T00:02:56Z

On Tuesday, 4 of December 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 23:34:26 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 3 of December 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 21:33:23 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday, 1 of December 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 (which will be released if it boots on two more machines and
> > > > > > if I stay awake) will say this during suspend-to-RAM on the Vaio:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ 91.876445] Syncing filesystems ... done.
> > > > > > [ 92.382595] Freezing user space processes ... WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2662 check_flags()
> > > > > > [ 92.384000] Pid: 1925, comm: dbus-daemon Not tainted 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 #32
> > > > > > [ 92.384177] [<c0104a74>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x12/0x25
> > > > > > [ 92.384335] [<c01052ff>] show_trace+0xd/0x10
> > > > > > [ 92.384469] [<c01059be>] dump_stack+0x55/0x5d
> > > > > > [ 92.384605] [<c0136a29>] check_flags+0x7f/0x11a
> > > > > > [ 92.384746] [<c0139cfb>] lock_acquire+0x3a/0x86
> > > > > > [ 92.384886] [<c031f4de>] _spin_lock+0x26/0x53
> > > > > > [ 92.385023] [<c0141d3b>] refrigerator+0x13/0xc8
> > > > > > [ 92.385163] [<c01274c8>] get_signal_to_deliver+0x32/0x3fb
> > > > > > [ 92.385326] [<c01030f4>] do_notify_resume+0x8c/0x699
> > > > > > [ 92.385476] [<c0103c18>] work_notifysig+0x13/0x1b
> > > > > > [ 92.385620] =======================
> > > > > > [ 92.385719] irq event stamp: 309
> > > > > > [ 92.385809] hardirqs last enabled at (309): [<c0103c79>] syscall_exit_work+0x11/0x26
> > > > > > [ 92.386045] hardirqs last disabled at (308): [<c0103b42>] syscall_exit+0x14/0x25
> > > > > > [ 92.386265] softirqs last enabled at (0): [<c011bea5>] copy_process+0x374/0x130e
> > > > > > [ 92.386491] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<00000000>] 0x0
> > > > > > [ 92.392457] (elapsed 0.00 seconds) done.
> > > > > > [ 92.392581] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.00 seconds) done.
> > > > > > [ 92.392882] PM: Entering mem sleep
> > > > > > [ 92.392974] Suspending console(s)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this has been happening for quite some time and might even be happening in
> > > > > > mainline.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it complaining that we entered refrigerator with irqs disabled?
> > > >
> > > > Or that someone else called task_lock() with irqs disabled at one point ...
> > > >
> > > > Hm, perhaps it's related to kernel preemption. Andrew, I guess the kernel is
> > > > preemptible?
> > > >
> > >
> > > yup. http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/config-sony.txt
> >
> > Is this reproducible with kernel preemption off?
>
> yes. Current -mm lineup:
>
> [ 34.455096] ipw2200: Failed to send WEP_KEY: Command timed out.
> [ 34.911876] Syncing filesystems ... done.
> [ 34.934526] Freezing user space processes ... WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2662 check_flags()
> [ 34.934917] Pid: 1922, comm: dbus-daemon Not tainted 2.6.24-rc3-mm3 #2
> [ 34.935036] [<c0104853>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x12/0x25
> [ 34.935142] [<c010506c>] show_trace+0xd/0x10
> [ 34.935231] [<c0105850>] dump_stack+0x55/0x5d
> [ 34.935322] [<c0136125>] check_flags+0x7f/0x11a
> [ 34.935417] [<c0139210>] lock_acquire+0x3a/0x86
> [ 34.935511] [<c0318faf>] _spin_lock+0x1c/0x49
> [ 34.935603] [<c0140fc7>] refrigerator+0x13/0xc8
> [ 34.935697] [<c01270ac>] get_signal_to_deliver+0x34/0x2e8
> [ 34.935807] [<c0102edc>] do_notify_resume+0x8c/0x6fe
> [ 34.935907] [<c0103a2c>] work_notifysig+0x13/0x1b
> [ 34.936004] =======================
> [ 34.936072] irq event stamp: 253
> [ 34.936133] hardirqs last enabled at (253): [<c0103a8d>] syscall_exit_work+0x11/0x26
> [ 34.936294] hardirqs last disabled at (252): [<c0103956>] syscall_exit+0x14/0x25
> [ 34.936446] softirqs last enabled at (0): [<c011baf9>] copy_process+0x300/0x1246
> [ 34.936599] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<00000000>] 0x0
> [ 34.954308] (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done.
> [ 34.954389] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.00 seconds) done.

Hmm, do I understand correctly that lockdep expects us to disable interrupts
before acquiring the task lock in refrigerator()? That would be strange.

Ingo, can you have a look at this, please?