From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, mark.langsdorf@amd.com
Subject: Re: S06cpuspeed/2637 is trying to acquire lock (&(&dbs_info->work)->work (was: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86/cpufreq: use cpumask_copy instead of =)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:48:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090620124817.GA22831@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090611105211.GA6760@elte.hu>
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 01:10:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > With a v2.6.30 based kernel i'm still getting a cpufreq lockdep
> > > warning:
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > 2.6.30-tip #10420
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > S06cpuspeed/2637 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > (&(&dbs_info->work)->work){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8106553d>] __cancel_work_timer+0xd6/0x22a
> > >
> > > but task is already holding lock:
> > > (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8193d630>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x28f/0x335
> > >
> > > This bug got introduced somewhere late in the .30-rc cycle, this box
> > > was fine before.
> >
> > See the thread " [PATCH] remove rwsem lock from CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP
> > call (second call site)" Though there's a report that the last
> > patch posted still doesn't fix the problem, so we still don't have
> > a quick fix suitable for -stable.
>
> even with latest -git (which includes cpufreq fixes) i get:
>
> [ 54.819413] CPUFREQ: ondemand sampling_rate_max sysfs file is deprecated - used by: cat
> [ 55.216665]
> [ 55.216668] =======================================================
> [ 55.216963] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 55.217134] 2.6.30-tip #5836
> [ 55.217276] -------------------------------------------------------
> [ 55.217428] S99local/4262 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 55.217577] (&(&dbs_info->work)->work){+.+...}, at: [<4104261f>] __cancel_work_timer+0xb8/0x1e9
> [ 55.218065]
> [ 55.218068] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 55.218351] (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<4157bd6b>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x25d/0x2e4
> [ 55.218358]
>
> full bootlog below. Can test fixes.
Note, this bug warning still triggers rather frequently with latest
-git (fb20871) during bootup on two test-systems - relevant portion
of the bootlog attached below. As usual i can test any fix for this.
Ingo
[ 266.276061]
[ 266.276064] =======================================================
[ 266.276243] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 266.276337] 2.6.30-tip #6165
[ 266.276423] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 266.276516] S99local/4038 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 266.276608] (&(&dbs_info->work)->work){+.+...}, at: [<c104b718>] __cancel_work_timer+0xa9/0x186
[ 266.276883]
[ 266.276884] but task is already holding lock:
[ 266.277055] (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c14f6241>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x24d/0x2d7
[ 266.277322]
[ 266.277323] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 266.277325]
[ 266.277577]
[ 266.277578] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 266.277752]
[ 266.277753] -> #2 (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[ 266.278055] [<c105fe5a>] validate_chain+0x810/0xa81
[ 266.278193] [<c106077f>] __lock_acquire+0x6b4/0x71f
[ 266.278331] [<c1061a58>] lock_acquire+0xb1/0xd5
[ 266.278466] [<c15ddbd2>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x363
[ 266.278605] [<c14f604d>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x59/0x2d7
[ 266.278742] [<c14f3d1b>] __cpufreq_governor+0x6a/0x74
[ 266.278881] [<c14f3e7f>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x15a/0x1c8
[ 266.279020] [<c14f515f>] cpufreq_add_dev+0x36b/0x448
[ 266.279158] [<c12d6308>] sysdev_driver_register+0x9b/0xea
[ 266.279299] [<c14f3c25>] cpufreq_register_driver+0xa2/0x12e
[ 266.279438] [<c1b07f8e>] acpi_cpufreq_init+0x108/0x11d
[ 266.279575] [<c1001151>] _stext+0x69/0x176
[ 266.279711] [<c1b00741>] kernel_init+0x86/0xd7
[ 266.279848] [<c1004387>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[ 266.279986] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 266.280023]
[ 266.280023] -> #1 (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+++++.}:
[ 266.280023] [<c105fe5a>] validate_chain+0x810/0xa81
[ 266.280023] [<c106077f>] __lock_acquire+0x6b4/0x71f
[ 266.280023] [<c1061a58>] lock_acquire+0xb1/0xd5
[ 266.280023] [<c15dea5f>] down_write+0x24/0x63
[ 266.280023] [<c14f4933>] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x38/0x64
[ 266.280023] [<c14f5d93>] do_dbs_timer+0x3b/0x29c
[ 266.280023] [<c104c124>] worker_thread+0x1ce/0x2c9
[ 266.280023] [<c104f4d8>] kthread+0x6b/0x73
[ 266.280023] [<c1004387>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
[ 266.280023] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 266.280023]
[ 266.280023] -> #0 (&(&dbs_info->work)->work){+.+...}:
[ 266.280023] [<c105fbea>] validate_chain+0x5a0/0xa81
[ 266.280023] [<c106077f>] __lock_acquire+0x6b4/0x71f
[ 266.280023] [<c1061a58>] lock_acquire+0xb1/0xd5
[ 266.280023] [<c104b72f>] __cancel_work_timer+0xc0/0x186
[ 266.280023] [<c104b805>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x10/0x12
[ 266.280023] [<c14f6252>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x25e/0x2d7
[ 266.280023] [<c14f3d1b>] __cpufreq_governor+0x6a/0x74
[ 266.280023] [<c14f3e69>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x144/0x1c8
[ 266.280023] [<c14f446f>] store_scaling_governor+0x15e/0x18d
[ 266.280023] [<c14f4cbc>] store+0x47/0x60
[ 266.280023] [<c11114f1>] sysfs_write_file+0xba/0xe5
[ 266.280023] [<c10c9898>] vfs_write+0xc5/0x162
[ 266.280023] [<c10c9e65>] sys_write+0x41/0x7c
[ 266.280023] [<c10039a7>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x3c
[ 266.280023] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
[ 266.280023]
[ 266.280023] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 266.280023]
[ 266.280023] 3 locks held by S99local/4038:
[ 266.280023] #0: (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c1111460>] sysfs_write_file+0x29/0xe5
[ 266.280023] #1: (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+++++.}, at: [<c14f4933>] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x38/0x64
[ 266.280023] #2: (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c14f6241>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x24d/0x2d7
[ 266.280023]
[ 266.280023] stack backtrace:
[ 266.280023] Pid: 4038, comm: S99local Tainted: G W 2.6.30-tip #6165
[ 266.280023] Call Trace:
[ 266.280023] [<c105f562>] print_circular_bug_tail+0xa3/0xae
[ 266.280023] [<c105fbea>] validate_chain+0x5a0/0xa81
[ 266.280023] [<c106077f>] __lock_acquire+0x6b4/0x71f
[ 266.280023] [<c105dcd0>] ? mark_held_locks+0x42/0x5a
[ 266.280023] [<c1061a58>] lock_acquire+0xb1/0xd5
[ 266.280023] [<c104b718>] ? __cancel_work_timer+0xa9/0x186
[ 266.280023] [<c104b72f>] __cancel_work_timer+0xc0/0x186
[ 266.280023] [<c104b718>] ? __cancel_work_timer+0xa9/0x186
[ 266.280023] [<c15ddee6>] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x352/0x363
[ 266.280023] [<c14f6241>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x24d/0x2d7
[ 266.280023] [<c104b805>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x10/0x12
[ 266.280023] [<c14f6252>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x25e/0x2d7
[ 266.280023] [<c14f3d1b>] __cpufreq_governor+0x6a/0x74
[ 266.280023] [<c14f3e69>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x144/0x1c8
[ 266.280023] [<c14f4311>] ? store_scaling_governor+0x0/0x18d
[ 266.280023] [<c14f446f>] store_scaling_governor+0x15e/0x18d
[ 266.280023] [<c14f4a9b>] ? handle_update+0x0/0x2d
[ 266.280023] [<c14f4311>] ? store_scaling_governor+0x0/0x18d
[ 266.280023] [<c14f4cbc>] store+0x47/0x60
[ 266.280023] [<c11114f1>] sysfs_write_file+0xba/0xe5
[ 266.280023] [<c1111437>] ? sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xe5
[ 266.280023] [<c10c9898>] vfs_write+0xc5/0x162
[ 266.280023] [<c10c9e65>] sys_write+0x41/0x7c
[ 266.280023] [<c10039a7>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x3c
[ 272.000046] End ring buffer hammer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-20 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-04 21:00 [PATCH] kvm: fix kvm reboot crash when MAXSMP is used Yinghai Lu
2009-06-04 21:01 ` [PATCH] cpumask: alloc blank cpumask left over Yinghai Lu
2009-06-05 4:58 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-05 5:18 ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-05 5:56 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-05 13:41 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-05 17:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-05 17:46 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-05 17:57 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 23:40 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-06 23:43 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-06 9:22 ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-06 9:36 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 9:39 ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-06 10:57 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 21:50 ` [PATCH 1/6] cpumask: introduce zalloc_cpumask_var Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 21:51 ` Subject: [PATCH 2/6] cpumask: alloc zeroed cpumask for static cpumask_var_ts Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 21:52 ` [PATCH 3/6] kvm: fix kvm reboot crash when MAXSMP is used Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 21:53 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86/cpufreq: use cpumask_copy instead of = Yinghai Lu
2009-06-09 6:57 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-09 8:13 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-10 4:20 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-10 13:39 ` Dave Jones
2009-06-10 17:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 15:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 16:28 ` Dave Jones
2009-06-09 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10 4:55 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-10 6:22 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-10 11:10 ` S06cpuspeed/2637 is trying to acquire lock (&(&dbs_info->work)->work (was: Re: [PATCH 4/6] x86/cpufreq: use cpumask_copy instead of =) Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 20:58 ` Dave Jones
2009-06-11 10:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-20 12:48 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-06-21 19:55 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-06-23 18:17 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: remove dbs_mutex Ingo Molnar
2009-06-23 18:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-23 18:51 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-06-23 19:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-23 19:24 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-06-23 19:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-25 14:01 ` Fix dead lock in cpufreq for CPU hotplug and suspend for 2.6.30.stable Thomas Renninger
2009-06-25 14:06 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-06-25 14:01 ` [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Remove unneeded dbs_mutexes from ondemand and conservative governors Thomas Renninger
2009-06-25 14:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-06-25 15:03 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-06-25 22:17 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-06-25 22:26 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-06-30 6:33 ` Pavel Machek
2009-07-03 10:10 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-07-05 19:46 ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-30 22:58 ` [stable] " Greg KH
2009-06-30 23:14 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2009-06-30 23:39 ` Greg KH
2009-07-01 9:07 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-06-25 14:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] remove rwsem lock from CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP call (second call site) Thomas Renninger
2009-06-10 19:42 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86/cpufreq: use cpumask_copy instead of = Langsdorf, Mark
2009-06-11 2:34 ` Rusty Russell
2009-09-21 16:44 ` Langsdorf, Mark
2009-06-06 21:55 ` [PATCH 5/6] core: use cpumask_copy instead of = for cpus_allowed in fork Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 21:56 ` [PATCH 6/6] x86/cpufreq: don't use SPEEDSTEP with MAXSMP Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 21:56 ` [PATCH 1/6] cpumask: introduce zalloc_cpumask_var Andrew Morton
2009-06-06 22:07 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-06 21:58 ` Linus Torvalds
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=20090620124817.GA22831@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.langsdorf@amd.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/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