Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753362Ab0BNUyn (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:54:43 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f228.google.com ([209.85.219.228]:32956 "EHLO mail-ew0-f228.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753001Ab0BNUyl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:54:41 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=PPkKBVPl2Lhyv+F6e6onQgUJTOrp3XAn1WnM2FQad22dC9Ydz94CYyfjNKDJNWNmRz +ti3W+5slB8JKdYwiJElRa956nNM5AIJ99jvixnfxtl/k9KrrMaRLVS77I47xisabiaF uI9i36fybPeQZodIO6zE5X+yQc82U6h6mkUrw= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <520f0cf11002110911t3f125649v73062e9851e2cfb3@mail.gmail.com> <520f0cf11002140510w5c57d196n12f8036ea6085c52@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:54:40 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 063ca841af67e574 Message-ID: <520f0cf11002141254y3f4536a9ta968dbaefbff58f7@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs From: John Kacur To: Eric Biederman Cc: LKML , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tejun Heo , Serge Hallyn , "David P. Quigley" , James Morris Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5195 Lines: 101 On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Eric Biederman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:10 AM, John Kacur wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:11 PM, John Kacur wrote: >>> I'm not sure if this one has already been reported. - thanks. >>> >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: 2.6.33-rc7 #1 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: --------------------------------------------- >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: 94cpufreq/2933 is trying to acquire lock: >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: (s_active){++++.+}, at: >>> [] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x53/0x6a >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: but task is already holding lock: >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: (s_active){++++.+}, at: >>> [] sysfs_get_active_two+0x24/0x48 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: other info that might help us debug this: >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: 4 locks held by 94cpufreq/2933: >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: #0: ?(&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: >>> [] sysfs_write_file+0x3e/0x12b >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: #1: ?(s_active){++++.+}, at: >>> [] sysfs_get_active_two+0x24/0x48 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: #2: ?(s_active){++++.+}, at: >>> [] sysfs_get_active_two+0x31/0x48 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: #3: ?(dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: >>> [] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x29b/0x348 >>> [cpufreq_ondemand] >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: stack backtrace: >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: Pid: 2933, comm: 94cpufreq Not >>> tainted 2.6.33-rc7 #1 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: Call Trace: >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> __lock_acquire+0xcf6/0xd8b >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] ? >>> debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x120/0x12f >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] ? >>> trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x11f/0x14a >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] lock_acquire+0xd8/0xf5 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] ? >>> sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x53/0x6a >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> sysfs_addrm_finish+0xe1/0x175 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] ? >>> sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x53/0x6a >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] ? >>> sub_preempt_count+0xa3/0xb6 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x53/0x6a >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> sysfs_remove_group+0x91/0xc9 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x2ae/0x348 [cpufreq_ondemand] >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] ? >>> sub_preempt_count+0xa3/0xb6 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> __cpufreq_governor+0x89/0xc7 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> __cpufreq_set_policy+0x18e/0x22a >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> store_scaling_governor+0x199/0x1ed >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] ? handle_update+0x0/0x39 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] ? down_write+0x76/0x7e >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] store+0x67/0x8b >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> sysfs_write_file+0xf6/0x12b >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] vfs_write+0xb0/0x10a >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] sys_write+0x4c/0x75 >>> Feb 11 07:24:15 localhost kernel: [] >>> system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b >>> >> >> This is still present in 2.6.33-rc8. >> I can trigger it every time. I have T500 laptop, the trick is to boot >> it up without plugging it in, so it is working on battery power, and >> then to shut the lid. >> first you get the message from above, and then it does a few more >> things before it freezes and I have to hard reboot it. >> The above problem does not occur if I have the laptop plugged into the wall. >> >> Here is the 2.6.33-rc8 version of above. If anyone has further >> suggestions for debugging, pls let me know. >> I've cced the folks that get_maintainer.pl reports for >> fs/sysfs/inode.c and fs/sysfs/dir.c > > We have a real hang and a possibly spurious lockdep report. > Could you try my latest patches that I sent to gregkh to clear up the sysfs > lockdep reports? ? I don't expect it will fix your issue but it will > at least give > us a better idea of where to look. > > Eric > Sure, are you referring to the patch-set that begins with "[PATCH 1/6] sysfs: Serialize updates to the vfs inode"? -- 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/