From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932179AbXGYLST (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:18:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756415AbXGYLSJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:18:09 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([80.160.20.94]:26704 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756314AbXGYLSH (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:18:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:18:36 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Satyam Sharma Cc: wharms@bfs.de, LKML , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , pm list Subject: Re: crash with 2.6.22.1 crash:ll_rw_blk.c blk_remove_plug() Message-ID: <20070725111836.GR3287@kernel.dk> References: <469DD37C.8050200@bfs.de> <20070718103342.GI11657@kernel.dk> <469DF233.5080902@bfs.de> <20070718110724.GN11657@kernel.dk> <469E072E.7080400@bfs.de> <20070718123142.GV11657@kernel.dk> <46A38B1E.3090605@bfs.de> <20070722221717.GV11657@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 25 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > On 7/23/07, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 22 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: >> > Hi Walter, >> > >> > Thanks for reporting this. >> > >> > On 7/22/07, walter harms wrote: >> >> hello all, >> >> on my asus notebook tm620 there is a crash with 2.6.22 and 2.6.21 >> > >> > Did this happen when you were resuming from a suspend-to-ram/disk? >> > [ I ask because I see swsusp in the trace below, linux-pm added to Cc: ] >> > >> >> .... >> >> Using IPI Shortcut mode >> >> WARNING: at block/ll_rw_blk.c:1575 blk_remove_plug() >> >> [] blk_remove_plug+0x36/0x5a >> >> [] __generic_unplug_device+0x14/0x1f >> >> [] __make_request+0x39b/0x49c >> >> [] generic_make_request+0x228/0x255 >> >> [] submit_bio+0xa5/0xac >> >> [] mempool_alloc+0x37/0xae >> >> [] submit+0xc2/0x11d >> >> [] bio_read_page+0x24/0x27 >> >> [] swsusp_check+0x4f/0xaf >> >> [] software_resume+0x5f/0x108 >> >> [] kernel_init+0xb0/0x212 >> >> [] ret_from_fork+0x6/0x1c >> >> [] kernel_init+0x0/0x212 >> >> [] kernel_init+0x0/0x212 >> >> [] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 >> >> ======================= >> > >> > Surprising, that's a WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled()) but IRQs are disabled >> > alright on that codepath. OTOH, __make_request() is heavily goto-driven, >> > uses the non-save/restore variants of spin_lock_irq, and does not even >> > balance locks / unlocks for some error paths ... gaah. >> >> __make_request() must be called from process context, hence >> spin_lock_irq() is perfectly already and the fastest way to go. And of >> course the locking is balanced! So please save your 'gaah's for code >> you actually took the time to try and understand. > > You're right, I didn't really look at that code for long (it even > explicitly > comments about what's going with the locking in there!) sorry about > that. > > [ Off-topic: BTW does every call to __make_request() end up in > blk_remove_plug()? Since you're explicitly making the assumption > that it *must* be called from process context (and hence the use of > the non-save/restore variants), you could consider putting a > WARN_ON(irqs_disabled()) over there, and perhaps a WARN_ON > (!spin_is_locked(queue_lock)) in blk_remove_plug() instead, and > other such similar functions that currently have the !irqs_disabled > check. This way you'd effectively cover _both_ the assertions, > and in appropriate places -- just a suggestion. ] No, blk_remove_plug() will only be called for sync bios, or where we have to wait for request allocation (which will unplug the device). __generic_make_request() already does a might_sleep() check, so it should catch this already. >> But it does look like unbalanced irq disable/enable calls. I'd guess in >> the suspend/resume path. Obviously something more esoteric, since this >> is the first such report for 2.6.22, so like some not-very-used driver >> for instance. > > Now that I do look at the codepath, it does seem surprising irqs were > not disabled there. There are a bunch of calls to _other_ functions > between the spin_lock_irq and the blk_remove_plug via > __generic_unplug_device that would also have complained about > !irqs_disabled. > > Walter, does this happen reproducibly? As I previously wrote, it's like some of the device power up or resume routines that botch the irq enable/disable stuff. It'd be interesting to start stripping down the config until the warning goes away - or enable CONFIG_PM_DEBUG which may help as well. -- Jens Axboe