Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 -- inconsistent {in-hardirq-W} -> {hardirq-on-W} usage -- pm-hibernate/9940 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1]

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 10:42 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 10:06 -0500, Miles Lane wrote:
> > [   11.827653] PM: Creating hibernation image:
> > [   11.827658] WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smp_32.c:561 
> > native_smp_call_function_mask()
> > [   11.827661] Pid: 9940, comm: pm-hibernate Not tainted
> > 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 #8
> > [   11.827665]  [<c0107d55>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x12/0x25
> > [   11.827673]  [<c010848a>] show_trace+0xd/0x10
> > [   11.827677]  [<c0108763>] dump_stack+0x57/0x5f
> > [   11.827681]  [<c0117db4>] native_smp_call_function_mask+0x41/0x126
> > [   11.827686]  [<c01192d9>] smp_call_function+0x18/0x1f
> > [   11.827690]  [<c012c624>] on_each_cpu+0x12/0x40
> > [   11.827695]  [<c0166ece>] drain_all_pages+0x13/0x16
> > [   11.827700]  [<c014f7b3>] swsusp_save+0x18/0x46b
> > [   11.827705]  [<c03103fa>] swsusp_arch_suspend+0x2a/0x2c
> > [   11.827710]  [<c014e7d8>] hibernate+0xba/0x16e
> > [   11.827714]  [<c014d56b>] state_store+0x45/0xac
> > [   11.827717]  [<c01ffe95>] kobj_attr_store+0x1a/0x22
> > [   11.827722]  [<c01b92c7>] sysfs_write_file+0xb8/0xe3
> > [   11.827726]  [<c01837eb>] vfs_write+0xa4/0x120
> > [   11.827731]  [<c0183d5e>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
> > [   11.827734]  [<c0106bae>] sysenter_past_esp+0x6b/0xc1
> > [   11.827738]  =======================
> ...
> > [   15.624993] =================================
> > [   15.624995] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> > [   15.624998] 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 #8
> > [   15.624999] ---------------------------------
> > [   15.625001] inconsistent {in-hardirq-W} -> {hardirq-on-W} usage.
> 
> It looks like the swsusp_save() calls drain_all_pages() , which calls
> on_each_cpu() .. On return on_each_cpu() unconditionally enables
> interrupts so the rest of the resume process has interrupt enable
> (which , it looks like, shouldn't happen) and then you get the lockdep()
> warning due to the above..
> 
> Not sure if this has been found already, or not?
> 
> Should drain_all_pages() really be drain_local_pages() ?

It looks like it was drain_local_pages, but the following patch

page-allocator-clean-up-pcp-draining-functions.patch

Changes that in -mm .. I added Christoph Lameter to the CC since it's
his patch ..

Daniel