Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754272AbYGHFxL (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 01:53:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751372AbYGHFw5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 01:52:57 -0400 Received: from E23SMTP06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.175]:57122 "EHLO e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750914AbYGHFw4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Jul 2008 01:52:56 -0400 Message-ID: <487300B1.4040300@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:22:49 +0530 From: Nageswara R Sastry User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Weiner CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, davej@codemonkey.org.uk Subject: Re: [BUG] While changing the cpufreq governor, kernel hits a bug in workqueue.c References: <485F8028.1070302@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87y74w41fp.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <4860BB8E.2070505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87tzfh2t5l.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <48638906.4090308@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87y74l4scd.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <87fxqp7nye.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> <4871E657.3040403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87d4lqq7ec.fsf@saeurebad.de> In-Reply-To: <87d4lqq7ec.fsf@saeurebad.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6068 Lines: 151 Hi Johannes, Johannes Weiner wrote: >> * I am seeing the circular locking dependency with the above patch >> too. > > Uhm. Failure or no failure? A possible dead-lock report _is_ a > failure. So, do you get one or not? And if so, could you send me the > dmesg parts? > > Thanks a lot, > > Hannes I could see a circular locking dependency and sysfs hang with the new patch named "cpufreq: cancel self-rearming work synchroneously" also. Please find the dmesg output. Please let me know if you need more information. Thank a lot for your coordination. ======================================================= [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.25.9.cpufreq #2 ------------------------------------------------------- S06cpuspeed/3427 is trying to acquire lock: (&(&dbs_info->work)->work){--..}, at: [] __cancel_work_timer+0x80/0x177 but task is already holding lock: (dbs_mutex){--..}, at: [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x26a/0x2f7 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (dbs_mutex){--..}: [] add_lock_to_list+0x61/0x83 [] __lock_acquire+0x953/0xb05 [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x72/0x2f7 [] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x79 [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x72/0x2f7 [] mutex_lock_nested+0xce/0x222 [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x72/0x2f7 [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x72/0x2f7 [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x72/0x2f7 [] __cpufreq_governor+0x73/0xa6 [] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x13b/0x19e [] cpufreq_add_dev+0x3b4/0x4aa [] handle_update+0x0/0x21 [] sysdev_driver_register+0x48/0x9a [] cpufreq_register_driver+0x9b/0x147 [] kernel_init+0x130/0x26f [] kernel_init+0x0/0x26f [] kernel_init+0x0/0x26f [] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 [] 0xffffffff -> #1 (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){----}: [] __lock_acquire+0x953/0xb05 [] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x30/0x56 [] save_stack_trace+0x1a/0x35 [] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x79 [] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x30/0x56 [] down_write+0x2b/0x44 [] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x30/0x56 [] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x30/0x56 [] do_dbs_timer+0x40/0x24f [] run_workqueue+0x81/0x187 [] run_workqueue+0xbc/0x187 [] run_workqueue+0x81/0x187 [] do_dbs_timer+0x0/0x24f [] worker_thread+0x0/0xbd [] worker_thread+0xb3/0xbd [] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2d [] kthread+0x38/0x5d [] kthread+0x0/0x5d [] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 [] 0xffffffff -> #0 (&(&dbs_info->work)->work){--..}: [] print_circular_bug_tail+0x2a/0x61 [] __lock_acquire+0x878/0xb05 [] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x79 [] __cancel_work_timer+0x80/0x177 [] __cancel_work_timer+0xab/0x177 [] __cancel_work_timer+0x80/0x177 [] mark_held_locks+0x39/0x53 [] mutex_lock_nested+0x20f/0x222 [] trace_hardirqs_on+0xe7/0x10e [] mutex_lock_nested+0x21a/0x222 [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x26a/0x2f7 [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x27c/0x2f7 [] __cpufreq_governor+0x73/0xa6 [] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x129/0x19e [] store_scaling_governor+0x112/0x135 [] handle_update+0x0/0x21 [] atkbd_set_leds+0x5/0xcf [] store_scaling_governor+0x0/0x135 [] store+0x3c/0x54 [] sysfs_write_file+0xa9/0xdd [] sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xdd [] vfs_write+0x83/0xf6 [] sys_write+0x3c/0x63 [] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5 [] 0xffffffff other info that might help us debug this: 3 locks held by S06cpuspeed/3427: #0: (&buffer->mutex){--..}, at: [] sysfs_write_file+0x24/0xdd #1: (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){----}, at: [] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x30/0x56 #2: (dbs_mutex){--..}, at: [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x26a/0x2f7 stack backtrace: Pid: 3427, comm: S06cpuspeed Not tainted 2.6.25.9.cpufreq #2 [] print_circular_bug_tail+0x57/0x61 [] __lock_acquire+0x878/0xb05 [] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x79 [] __cancel_work_timer+0x80/0x177 [] __cancel_work_timer+0xab/0x177 [] __cancel_work_timer+0x80/0x177 [] mark_held_locks+0x39/0x53 [] mutex_lock_nested+0x20f/0x222 [] trace_hardirqs_on+0xe7/0x10e [] mutex_lock_nested+0x21a/0x222 [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x26a/0x2f7 [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x27c/0x2f7 [] __cpufreq_governor+0x73/0xa6 [] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x129/0x19e [] store_scaling_governor+0x112/0x135 [] handle_update+0x0/0x21 [] atkbd_set_leds+0x5/0xcf [] store_scaling_governor+0x0/0x135 [] store+0x3c/0x54 [] sysfs_write_file+0xa9/0xdd [] sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xdd [] vfs_write+0x83/0xf6 [] sys_write+0x3c/0x63 [] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5 ======================= Thanks!! Regards R.Nageswara Sastry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/