From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: mmotm 2010-02-10 - lockdep whinge in ACPI code
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:26:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100210212655.7784dc5b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5114.1265865104@localhost>
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:11:44 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:17:41 PST, akpm@linux-foundation.org said:
> > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-02-10-16-17 has been uploaded to
> >
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/
>
> Seen at boot:
>
> [ 0.207242] ACPI: (supports S0 S5)
> [ 0.207257] ACPI: Using IOAPIC for interrupt routing
> [ 0.335315]
> [ 0.335316] =============================================
> [ 0.335483] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 0.335572] 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210 #1
> [ 0.335658] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 0.335746] swapper/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 0.335834] (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812eb521>] __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999]
> [ 0.335999] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 0.335999] (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812eb513>] __driver_attach+0x39/0x80
> [ 0.335999]
> [ 0.335999] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 0.335999] 1 lock held by swapper/1:
> [ 0.335999] #0: (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812eb513>] __driver_attach+0x39/0x80
> [ 0.335999]
> [ 0.335999] stack backtrace:
> [ 0.335999] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210 #1
> [ 0.335999] Call Trace:
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81063b47>] __lock_acquire+0xc77/0xcee
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81061fad>] ? mark_lock+0x2d/0x22c
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81063c89>] lock_acquire+0xcb/0xe8
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff810621fe>] ? mark_held_locks+0x52/0x70
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81568c9d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5c/0x5aa
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff815583f8>] ? klist_next+0x24/0xd7
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb4da>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81569291>] mutex_lock_nested+0x34/0x39
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] __driver_attach+0x47/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb4da>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb4da>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eaa43>] bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x89
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb28a>] driver_attach+0x19/0x1b
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eaed5>] bus_add_driver+0xb4/0x203
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb833>] driver_register+0xb8/0x129
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81231604>] acpi_bus_register_driver+0x3e/0x40
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b45094>] acpi_ec_init+0x37/0x55
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b44ef1>] acpi_init+0x115/0x12a
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b44ddc>] ? acpi_init+0x0/0x12a
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff810001ef>] do_one_initcall+0x59/0x14e
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b26655>] kernel_init+0x14d/0x1a3
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81003354>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff8156b0c0>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b26508>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x1a3
> [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81003350>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
> [ 0.340036] ACPI: EC: GPE = 0x11, I/O: command/status = 0x934, data = 0x930
>
driver_attach() got converted from sem to mutex in linux-next. So this
is probably an old bug which just got exposed.
Or maybe not. Thomas, has that patch been in some other tree (rt?) for
a while? If so, was this bug observed in that tree? If not, it might
be new.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-11 5:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-11 0:17 mmotm 2010-02-10-16-17 uploaded akpm
2010-02-11 2:43 ` mmotm 2010-02-10-16-17 uploaded (timberdale) Randy Dunlap
2010-02-11 22:01 ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-11 22:18 ` Randy Dunlap
2010-02-11 22:36 ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-11 23:30 ` [PATCH -mmotm] timberdale: fix mfd build Randy Dunlap
2010-02-11 5:11 ` mmotm 2010-02-10 - lockdep whinge in ACPI code Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-02-11 5:26 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-02-11 15:01 ` Greg KH
2010-02-12 2:11 ` Dave Young
2010-02-12 2:44 ` mmotm 2010-02-10 - BUG at fs/dcache.c:677! Valdis.Kletnieks
2010-02-12 3:14 ` Andrew Morton
2010-02-12 4:51 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2010-02-12 5:01 ` Al Viro
2010-02-12 5:07 ` Al Viro
2010-02-12 5:30 ` Stephen Rothwell
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=20100210212655.7784dc5b.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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