Re: [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Set cpufreq_cpu_data to NULL before putting kobject

santosh shilimkar
2015-02-25T16:32:18Z

On 2/24/2015 9:47 PM, Ethan Zhao wrote:
> Viresh,
>
> Will do that when I get the test box.
>
Thanks Ethan.

>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:35 PM, viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 25 February 2015 08:54 AM, Ethan Zhao wrote:
>>> Viresh,
>>> With this patch applied, still got the following warning and panic,
>>> seems it needs more care.
>>>
>>> 54.474618] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> [ 54.545816] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 213 at include/linux/kref.h:47
>>> kobject_get+0x41/0x50()
>>> [ 54.642595] Modules linked in: i2c_i801(+) mfd_core shpchp(+)
>>> acpi_cpufreq(+) edac_core ioatdma(+) xfs libcrc32c ast syscopyarea ixgbe
>>> sysfillrect sysimgblt sr_mod sd_mod drm_kms_helper igb mdio cdrom e1000e ahci
>>> dca ttm libahci uas drm i2c_algo_bit ptp megaraid_sas libata usb_storage
>>> i2c_core pps_core dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod
>>> [ 55.007264] CPU: 0 PID: 213 Comm: kworker/0:2 Not tainted
>>> 3.18.5
>>> [ 55.099970] Hardware name: Oracle Corporation SUN FIRE X4170 M2 SERVER
>>> /ASSY,MOTHERBOARD,X4170, BIOS 08120104 05/08/2012
>>> [ 55.239736] Workqueue: kacpi_notify acpi_os_execute_deferred
>>> [ 55.308598] 0000000000000000 00000000bd730b61 ffff88046742baf8
>>> ffffffff816b7edb
>>> [ 55.398305] 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffff88046742bb38
>>> ffffffff81078ae1
>>> [ 55.488040] ffff88046742bbd8 ffff8806706b3000 0000000000000292
>>> 0000000000000000
>>> [ 55.577776] Call Trace:
>>> [ 55.608228] [<ffffffff816b7edb>] dump_stack+0x46/0x58
>>> [ 55.670895] [<ffffffff81078ae1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x81/0xa0
>>> [ 55.743952] [<ffffffff81078bfa>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
>>> [ 55.814929] [<ffffffff8130d0d1>] kobject_get+0x41/0x50
>>> [ 55.878654] [<ffffffff8153e955>] cpufreq_cpu_get+0x75/0xc0
>>> [ 55.946528] [<ffffffff8153f37e>] cpufreq_update_policy+0x2e/0x1f0
>>> [ 56.021682] [<ffffffff810bf9d2>] ? up+0x32/0x50
>>> [ 56.078126] [<ffffffff813ab975>] ? acpi_ns_get_node+0xcb/0xf2
>>> [ 56.148974] [<ffffffff813abdc9>] ? acpi_evaluate_object+0x22c/0x252
>>> [ 56.226066] [<ffffffff813ac3c2>] ? acpi_get_handle+0x95/0xc0
>>> [ 56.295871] [<ffffffff8138a7fb>] ? acpi_has_method+0x25/0x40
>>> [ 56.365661] [<ffffffff813bbcd4>] acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed+0x77/0x82
>>> [ 56.448956] [<ffffffff8108f726>] ? move_linked_works+0x66/0x90
>>> [ 56.520842] [<ffffffff813b87b9>] acpi_processor_notify+0x58/0xe7
>>> [ 56.594807] [<ffffffff8139dfd8>] acpi_ev_notify_dispatch+0x44/0x5c
>>> [ 56.670859] [<ffffffff81388fe3>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x15/0x22
>>> [ 56.747936] [<ffffffff8109268e>] process_one_work+0x14e/0x3f0
>>> [ 56.818766] [<ffffffff81092d9b>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x4d0
>>> [ 56.886486] [<ffffffff81092c80>] ? rescuer_thread+0x350/0x350
>>> [ 56.957316] [<ffffffff810984f1>] kthread+0xe1/0x100
>>> [ 57.017742] [<ffffffff81098410>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1b0/0x1b0
>>> [ 57.096903] [<ffffffff816bfe7c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>> [ 57.162534] [<ffffffff81098410>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1b0/0x1b0
>>> [ 57.241680] ---[ end trace dce06bb76f547de5 ]---
>>>
>>>
>>> Any idea ?
>>
>> No. Santosh reported this to me few days back, I asked him to perform some
>> testing but don't know what happened after that..
>>
I didn't get time to re-look into it so far.

Regards,
Santosh