* coretemp breaks lockdep. (MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!)
@ 2011-09-15 19:30 Dave Jones
2011-09-16 16:07 ` Guenter Roeck
2011-09-20 10:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dave Jones @ 2011-09-15 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel; +Cc: Rudolf Marek
just had a user report this against rc6..
# while true; do rmmod coretemp; modprobe coretemp; done
[15811.924167] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!
[15811.924171] turning off the locking correctness validator.
[15811.924175] Pid: 10598, comm: modprobe Not tainted 3.1.0-rc6+ #5
[15811.924178] Call Trace:
[15811.924187] [<ffffffff81081205>] ? up+0x39/0x3e
[15811.924193] [<ffffffff8108e556>] add_lock_to_list.constprop.22+0x45/0xa7
[15811.924198] [<ffffffff81090c05>] __lock_acquire+0xb7f/0xd0c
[15811.924204] [<ffffffff81091594>] ? mark_held_locks+0x6d/0x95
[15811.924210] [<ffffffff814e27d5>] ? __slab_alloc+0x41c/0x43d
[15811.924216] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
[15811.924221] [<ffffffff81091295>] lock_acquire+0xf3/0x13e
[15811.924225] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
[15811.924230] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
[15811.924236] [<ffffffff814e96a3>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73
[15811.924241] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
[15811.924245] [<ffffffff8127012e>] ? kobject_get+0x18/0x1f
[15811.924250] [<ffffffff812701d0>] kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
[15811.924255] [<ffffffff812705fa>] kobject_add+0x91/0xa2
[15811.924260] [<ffffffff814c5afd>] ? klist_init+0x33/0x46
[15811.924265] [<ffffffff81337bc3>] device_add+0xd5/0x576
[15811.924271] [<ffffffff81336ac3>] ? dev_set_name+0x41/0x43
[15811.924277] [<ffffffff8133b8f1>] platform_device_add+0x111/0x15b
[15811.924283] [<ffffffffa0606cbd>] get_core_online+0x9b/0x143 [coretemp]
[15811.924290] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
[15811.924296] [<ffffffffa005004b>] coretemp_init+0x4b/0x1000 [coretemp]
[15811.924302] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
[15811.924308] [<ffffffff81002099>] do_one_initcall+0x7f/0x13a
[15811.924313] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
[15811.924319] [<ffffffff8109cacf>] sys_init_module+0x114/0x267
[15811.924324] [<ffffffff814f0202>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: coretemp breaks lockdep. (MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!)
2011-09-15 19:30 coretemp breaks lockdep. (MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!) Dave Jones
@ 2011-09-16 16:07 ` Guenter Roeck
2011-09-16 16:29 ` Dave Jones
2011-09-20 10:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2011-09-16 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Rudolf Marek; +Cc: lm-sensors, R, Durgadoss
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:30:18PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> just had a user report this against rc6..
>
> # while true; do rmmod coretemp; modprobe coretemp; done
>
>
> [15811.924167] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!
> [15811.924171] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> [15811.924175] Pid: 10598, comm: modprobe Not tainted 3.1.0-rc6+ #5
> [15811.924178] Call Trace:
> [15811.924187] [<ffffffff81081205>] ? up+0x39/0x3e
> [15811.924193] [<ffffffff8108e556>] add_lock_to_list.constprop.22+0x45/0xa7
> [15811.924198] [<ffffffff81090c05>] __lock_acquire+0xb7f/0xd0c
> [15811.924204] [<ffffffff81091594>] ? mark_held_locks+0x6d/0x95
> [15811.924210] [<ffffffff814e27d5>] ? __slab_alloc+0x41c/0x43d
> [15811.924216] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> [15811.924221] [<ffffffff81091295>] lock_acquire+0xf3/0x13e
> [15811.924225] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> [15811.924230] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> [15811.924236] [<ffffffff814e96a3>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73
> [15811.924241] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> [15811.924245] [<ffffffff8127012e>] ? kobject_get+0x18/0x1f
> [15811.924250] [<ffffffff812701d0>] kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> [15811.924255] [<ffffffff812705fa>] kobject_add+0x91/0xa2
> [15811.924260] [<ffffffff814c5afd>] ? klist_init+0x33/0x46
> [15811.924265] [<ffffffff81337bc3>] device_add+0xd5/0x576
> [15811.924271] [<ffffffff81336ac3>] ? dev_set_name+0x41/0x43
> [15811.924277] [<ffffffff8133b8f1>] platform_device_add+0x111/0x15b
> [15811.924283] [<ffffffffa0606cbd>] get_core_online+0x9b/0x143 [coretemp]
> [15811.924290] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
> [15811.924296] [<ffffffffa005004b>] coretemp_init+0x4b/0x1000 [coretemp]
> [15811.924302] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
> [15811.924308] [<ffffffff81002099>] do_one_initcall+0x7f/0x13a
> [15811.924313] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
> [15811.924319] [<ffffffff8109cacf>] sys_init_module+0x114/0x267
> [15811.924324] [<ffffffff814f0202>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
>
I have tried to reproduce the problem with lockdeb debugging enabled,
but I was unable to see it. Guess I must be missing something.
Couple of questions:
What CPU and/or system was this seen with ? Output of /proc/cpuinfo might help.
Can you send the configuration file used to build the kernel ?
How long does one have to run the loop ?
What is the output of "sensors" with coretemp loaded ?
Thanks,
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: coretemp breaks lockdep. (MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!)
2011-09-16 16:07 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2011-09-16 16:29 ` Dave Jones
2011-09-18 18:05 ` Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dave Jones @ 2011-09-16 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Guenter Roeck; +Cc: Linux Kernel, Rudolf Marek, lm-sensors, R, Durgadoss
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:07:52AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:30:18PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > just had a user report this against rc6..
> >
> > # while true; do rmmod coretemp; modprobe coretemp; done
> >
> >
> > [15811.924167] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!
> > [15811.924171] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > [15811.924175] Pid: 10598, comm: modprobe Not tainted 3.1.0-rc6+ #5
> > [15811.924178] Call Trace:
> > [15811.924187] [<ffffffff81081205>] ? up+0x39/0x3e
> > [15811.924193] [<ffffffff8108e556>] add_lock_to_list.constprop.22+0x45/0xa7
> > [15811.924198] [<ffffffff81090c05>] __lock_acquire+0xb7f/0xd0c
> > [15811.924204] [<ffffffff81091594>] ? mark_held_locks+0x6d/0x95
> > [15811.924210] [<ffffffff814e27d5>] ? __slab_alloc+0x41c/0x43d
> > [15811.924216] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > [15811.924221] [<ffffffff81091295>] lock_acquire+0xf3/0x13e
> > [15811.924225] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > [15811.924230] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > [15811.924236] [<ffffffff814e96a3>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73
> > [15811.924241] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > [15811.924245] [<ffffffff8127012e>] ? kobject_get+0x18/0x1f
> > [15811.924250] [<ffffffff812701d0>] kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > [15811.924255] [<ffffffff812705fa>] kobject_add+0x91/0xa2
> > [15811.924260] [<ffffffff814c5afd>] ? klist_init+0x33/0x46
> > [15811.924265] [<ffffffff81337bc3>] device_add+0xd5/0x576
> > [15811.924271] [<ffffffff81336ac3>] ? dev_set_name+0x41/0x43
> > [15811.924277] [<ffffffff8133b8f1>] platform_device_add+0x111/0x15b
> > [15811.924283] [<ffffffffa0606cbd>] get_core_online+0x9b/0x143 [coretemp]
> > [15811.924290] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
> > [15811.924296] [<ffffffffa005004b>] coretemp_init+0x4b/0x1000 [coretemp]
> > [15811.924302] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
> > [15811.924308] [<ffffffff81002099>] do_one_initcall+0x7f/0x13a
> > [15811.924313] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
> > [15811.924319] [<ffffffff8109cacf>] sys_init_module+0x114/0x267
> > [15811.924324] [<ffffffff814f0202>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >
> >
> I have tried to reproduce the problem with lockdeb debugging enabled,
> but I was unable to see it. Guess I must be missing something.
>
> Couple of questions:
>
> What CPU and/or system was this seen with ? Output of /proc/cpuinfo might help.
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 23
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU L9600 @ 2.13GHz
stepping : 10
cpu MHz : 800.000
cache size : 6144 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 2
core id : 0
cpu cores : 2
apicid : 0
initial apicid : 0
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 13
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 xsave lahf_lm ida dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority
bogomips : 4266.41
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:
processor : 1
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 23
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU L9600 @ 2.13GHz
stepping : 10
cpu MHz : 2134.000
cache size : 6144 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 2
core id : 1
cpu cores : 2
apicid : 1
initial apicid : 1
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 13
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 xsave lahf_lm ida dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority
bogomips : 4266.79
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:
> Can you send the configuration file used to build the kernel ?
User reported it using a fedora config. I reproduced it using a similar one..
http://codemonkey.org.uk/junk/coretempbug-config
> How long does one have to run the loop ?
happened within a few seconds for me
> What is the output of "sensors" with coretemp loaded ?
$ sensors
acpitz-virtual-0
Adapter: Virtual device
temp1: +81.0°C (crit = +100.0°C)
temp2: +62.0°C (crit = +100.0°C)
temp3: +61.0°C (crit = +100.0°C)
coretemp-isa-0000
Adapter: ISA adapter
Core 0: +78.0°C (high = +105.0°C, hyst = +0.0°C)
(crit = +105.0°C)
Core 1: +81.0°C (high = +105.0°C, hyst = +0.0°C)
(crit = +105.0°C)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: coretemp breaks lockdep. (MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!)
2011-09-16 16:29 ` Dave Jones
@ 2011-09-18 18:05 ` Guenter Roeck
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Guenter Roeck @ 2011-09-18 18:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Jones, Linux Kernel, Rudolf Marek, lm-sensors, R, Durgadoss
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:29:29PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:07:52AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:30:18PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > just had a user report this against rc6..
> > >
> > > # while true; do rmmod coretemp; modprobe coretemp; done
> > >
> > >
> > > [15811.924167] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!
> > > [15811.924171] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > > [15811.924175] Pid: 10598, comm: modprobe Not tainted 3.1.0-rc6+ #5
> > > [15811.924178] Call Trace:
> > > [15811.924187] [<ffffffff81081205>] ? up+0x39/0x3e
> > > [15811.924193] [<ffffffff8108e556>] add_lock_to_list.constprop.22+0x45/0xa7
> > > [15811.924198] [<ffffffff81090c05>] __lock_acquire+0xb7f/0xd0c
> > > [15811.924204] [<ffffffff81091594>] ? mark_held_locks+0x6d/0x95
> > > [15811.924210] [<ffffffff814e27d5>] ? __slab_alloc+0x41c/0x43d
> > > [15811.924216] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > > [15811.924221] [<ffffffff81091295>] lock_acquire+0xf3/0x13e
> > > [15811.924225] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > > [15811.924230] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > > [15811.924236] [<ffffffff814e96a3>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73
> > > [15811.924241] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > > [15811.924245] [<ffffffff8127012e>] ? kobject_get+0x18/0x1f
> > > [15811.924250] [<ffffffff812701d0>] kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c
> > > [15811.924255] [<ffffffff812705fa>] kobject_add+0x91/0xa2
> > > [15811.924260] [<ffffffff814c5afd>] ? klist_init+0x33/0x46
> > > [15811.924265] [<ffffffff81337bc3>] device_add+0xd5/0x576
> > > [15811.924271] [<ffffffff81336ac3>] ? dev_set_name+0x41/0x43
> > > [15811.924277] [<ffffffff8133b8f1>] platform_device_add+0x111/0x15b
> > > [15811.924283] [<ffffffffa0606cbd>] get_core_online+0x9b/0x143 [coretemp]
> > > [15811.924290] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
> > > [15811.924296] [<ffffffffa005004b>] coretemp_init+0x4b/0x1000 [coretemp]
> > > [15811.924302] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
> > > [15811.924308] [<ffffffff81002099>] do_one_initcall+0x7f/0x13a
> > > [15811.924313] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff
> > > [15811.924319] [<ffffffff8109cacf>] sys_init_module+0x114/0x267
> > > [15811.924324] [<ffffffff814f0202>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> > >
> > >
[ ... ]
Turns out I can trigger a similar message with any module which creates platform devices
and/or sysfs attributes.
Example with w83627ehf, using "while true; do rmmod w83627ehf; modprobe w83627ehf; done":
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823865] BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823871] turning off the locking correctness validator.
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823878] Pid: 1621, comm: rmmod Not tainted 3.1.0-rc6+ #1
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823882] Call Trace:
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823894] [<ffffffff810a02ef>] save_trace+0xcf/0xe0
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823901] [<ffffffff810a3003>] mark_lock+0x123/0x410
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823907] [<ffffffff810a3c56>] __lock_acquire+0x206/0x15d0
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823914] [<ffffffff810a3829>] ? debug_check_no_locks_freed+0xa9/0x170
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823920] [<ffffffff810a36e5>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x190
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823926] [<ffffffff810a5602>] lock_acquire+0xa2/0x130
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823935] [<ffffffff811ef393>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823943] [<ffffffff811eecb7>] sysfs_deactivate+0x117/0x160
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823949] [<ffffffff811ef393>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823957] [<ffffffff811ef393>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823963] [<ffffffff811ed5ab>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x9b/0xa0
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823969] [<ffffffff811ee287>] sysfs_remove_file+0x17/0x20
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823977] [<ffffffff813de4b7>] device_remove_file+0x17/0x20
Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823985] [<ffffffffa03931c2>] w83627ehf_device_remove_files+0x102/0x300
I have seen the same message with lm90, jc42, and ltc4261.
Looking through the code, it appears the the lockdep checking code adds entries whenever
a lock is added, but never removes anything (or I missed the removals). So I am not
convinced that this is really a coretemp problem, but instead a generic problem caused
by the way lockdep checks are implemented. The reason for getting a MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES
instead of MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES error for coretemp might simply be that it generates
more platform devices per instance than the other drivers.
Thanks,
Guenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: coretemp breaks lockdep. (MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!)
2011-09-15 19:30 coretemp breaks lockdep. (MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!) Dave Jones
2011-09-16 16:07 ` Guenter Roeck
@ 2011-09-20 10:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2011-09-20 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Jones; +Cc: Linux Kernel, Rudolf Marek
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 15:30 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> # while true; do rmmod coretemp; modprobe coretemp; done
>
>
That's a known 'feature' of lockdep, module usage leaks resources. Just
say no to modules.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-09-20 10:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-09-15 19:30 coretemp breaks lockdep. (MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!) Dave Jones
2011-09-16 16:07 ` Guenter Roeck
2011-09-16 16:29 ` Dave Jones
2011-09-18 18:05 ` Guenter Roeck
2011-09-20 10:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox