From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932121AbWFFHAc (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2006 03:00:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932123AbWFFHAc (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2006 03:00:32 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.191]:18510 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932121AbWFFHAc (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2006 03:00:32 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=GkBuUcN2/DcU3ZkKgKqmuEnZLiJI+PNhhyZpBI23tLYiLhShn/bOobwK2CmZnSoqu2KUW+PIfwnDidTRhSNVFYn+2E5/ys5vuOsfbxtvCl8FzPnheNVL4NqAofnRUByWxMR4mNDyGBNedZYe3EMCAjz8UMIAgCg8TvHARvvphR8= Message-ID: <44852819.2080503@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:00:18 +0159 From: Jiri Slaby User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu CC: Andrew Morton , arjan@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3-lockdep - References: <200606060250.k562oCrA004583@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200606060250.k562oCrA004583@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu napsal(a): > It's living longer before it throws a complaint - we're making it out of > rc.sysinit and into rc5.d ;) This time we were in an 'id' command from this: > > test `id -u` = 0 || exit 4 > > in either S11mcstrans or S18auditd. Looks like the Firewire (which I > don't actually use for anything) threw an IRQ at an inopportune time? > > (Obviously I stress different code paths than Arjan or Ingo. But if > I did the same things they did, it wouldn't be interesting.. ;) > > [ 464.687000] ( id-2700 |#0): new 569737200 us user-latency. > [ 464.687000] stopped custom tracer. > [ 464.687000] > [ 464.687000] ============================ > [ 464.687000] [ BUG: illegal lock usage! ] > [ 464.687000] ---------------------------- > [ 464.687000] illegal {in-hardirq-W} -> {hardirq-on-W} usage. > [ 464.687000] id/2700 [HC0[0]:SC0[1]:HE1:SE0] takes: > [ 464.687000] (&list->lock){++..}, at: [] unix_stream_connect+0x334/0x408 > [ 464.687000] {in-hardirq-W} state was registered at: > [ 464.687000] [] lockdep_acquire+0x67/0x7f > [ 464.687000] [] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x30/0x3f > [ 464.687000] [] skb_dequeue+0x18/0x49 > [ 464.687000] [] hpsb_bus_reset+0x5e/0xa2 [ieee1394] > [ 464.687000] [] ohci_irq_handler+0x370/0x726 [ohci1394] > [ 464.687000] [] handle_IRQ_event+0x1d/0x52 > [ 464.687000] [] handle_level_irq+0x97/0xe3 > [ 464.687000] [] do_IRQ+0x8b/0xaf > [ 464.687000] irq event stamp: 2964 > [ 464.687000] hardirqs last enabled at (2963): [] _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3b/0x6d > [ 464.687000] hardirqs last disabled at (2962): [] _spin_lock_irqsave+0x14/0x3f > [ 464.687000] softirqs last enabled at (2956): [] __do_softirq+0x9d/0xa5 > [ 464.687000] softirqs last disabled at (2964): [] _spin_lock_bh+0x10/0x3a > [ 464.687000] > [ 464.687000] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 464.687000] 1 locks held by id/2700: > [ 464.687000] #0: (&u->lock){--..}, at: [] unix_stream_connect+0xe8/0x408 > [ 464.687000] > [ 464.687000] stack backtrace: > [ 464.687000] [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x64/0x125 > [ 464.687000] [] show_trace+0x1b/0x20 > [ 464.687000] [] dump_stack+0x1f/0x24 > [ 464.687000] [] print_usage_bug+0x1a8/0x1b4 > [ 464.687000] [] mark_lock+0x2ba/0x4e5 > [ 464.687000] [] __lockdep_acquire+0x476/0xa91 > [ 464.687000] [] lockdep_acquire+0x67/0x7f > [ 464.687000] [] _spin_lock_bh+0x2c/0x3a > [ 464.687000] [] unix_stream_connect+0x334/0x408 > [ 464.687000] [] sys_connect+0x6e/0xa3 > [ 464.687000] [] sys_socketcall+0x96/0x190 > [ 464.687000] [] sysenter_past_esp+0x63/0xa1 > That one would be corrected now: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/5/100 regards, - -- Jiri Slaby www.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby \_.-^-._ jirislaby@gmail.com _.-^-._/ B67499670407CE62ACC8 22A032CC55C339D47A7E -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEhSgZMsxVwznUen4RAqfjAKC8lvknOP66TEqb1oD7y9RaoAaW1gCfWk/m 4GLhay/GeS/wij5E6V9LUOg= =uN9Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----