Re: Locking Problem in 2.6.33-rc5

Larry Finger
2010-01-26T18:50:36Z

On 01/26/2010 12:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On suspend to RAM, I get the following recursive locking message:
>>
>> =============================================
>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> 2.6.33-rc5-Linus-dirty #173
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> sh/3488 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81167413>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff8116771d>] sysfs_get_active_two+0x3d/0x60
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>> 4 locks held by sh/3488:
>> #0: (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81165b7f>]
>> sysfs_write_file+0x3f/0x160
>> #1: (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff8116771d>] sysfs_get_active_two+0x3d/0x60
>> #2: (s_active){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81167702>] sysfs_get_active_two+0x22/0x60
>> #3: (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81271517>]
>> cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xe7/0x480
>>
>> stack backtrace:
>> Pid: 3488, comm: sh Not tainted 2.6.33-rc5-Linus-dirty #173
>> Call Trace:
>> [<ffffffff8107c36b>] __lock_acquire+0xf6b/0x1d30
>> [<ffffffff81078e9f>] ? lockdep_init_map+0x5f/0x5d0
>> [<ffffffff8107d1cb>] lock_acquire+0x9b/0x120
>> [<ffffffff81167413>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
>> [<ffffffff81166ba3>] sysfs_deactivate+0xc3/0x110
>> [<ffffffff81167413>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
>> [<ffffffff81167413>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
>> [<ffffffff81165206>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x56/0x80
>> [<ffffffff8116895f>] sysfs_remove_group+0x4f/0xf0
>> [<ffffffff8127152b>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0xfb/0x480
>> [<ffffffff8107a8dd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x14d/0x190
>> [<ffffffff8107a92d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>> [<ffffffff8126e314>] __cpufreq_governor+0x94/0x160
>> [<ffffffff8126f84f>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x11f/0x180
>> [<ffffffff8126fc66>] store_scaling_governor+0xc6/0x200
>> [<ffffffff81270530>] ? handle_update+0x0/0x10
>> [<ffffffff8126f702>] store+0x62/0x90
>> [<ffffffff81165c21>] sysfs_write_file+0xe1/0x160
>> [<ffffffff8110b0c8>] vfs_write+0xb8/0x180
>> [<ffffffff8110b26c>] sys_write+0x4c/0x80
>> [<ffffffff81002dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> Does the patch at http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/70461/ fix it?

No, it does not. The traceback is identical except for the new kernel
compilation number.

Larry