Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754973Ab0BRSpw (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:45:52 -0500 Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:43175 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751874Ab0BRSpu (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:45:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [2.6.33-rc5] Weird deadlock when shutting down From: Johannes Berg To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: <1264740107.20211.53.camel@pasglop> <1266485775.6539.6.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-jMq8qHulsVqCCIMujYd0" Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:45:35 +0100 Message-ID: <1266518735.3829.4.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.29.3.2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2715 Lines: 74 --=-jMq8qHulsVqCCIMujYd0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 08:31 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > halt/4071 is trying to acquire lock: > > > (s_active){++++.+}, at: [] > > > .sysfs_addrm_finish+0x58/0xc0 > > >=20 > > > but task is already holding lock: > > > (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+.+.+.}, at: > [] > > > .lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x84/0xf4 > > >=20 > > > which lock already depends on the new lock. >=20 > You don't have a full backtrace for these things? No, it deadlocks right there, unfortunately. > We've had lots of trouble with the cpu governors, and I suspect the=20 > problem isn't new, but the lockdep warning is likely new (see commit=20 > 846f99749ab68bbc7f75c74fec305de675b1a1bf: "sysfs: Add lockdep > annotations=20 > for the sysfs active reference"). >=20 > So it is likely to be an old issue that (a) now gets warned about and > (b) might have had timing changes enough to trigger it. Well, it used to not deadlock and actually shut down the machine :) So in that sense it's definitely new. It might have printed a lockdep warning before, which you wouldn't normally see since the machine turns off right after this. > I suspect it is G5-specific (or specific to whatever CPU frequency > code=20 > that gets used there), since I think we'd have had lots of reports if > this=20 > happened on x86. Yeah, that's puzzling me as well. johannes --=-jMq8qHulsVqCCIMujYd0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAABAgAGBQJLfYrKAAoJEODzc/N7+QmaFUIQAK3l2asXHlwPg6zYbHeBWhYm Qm49GvWw6UEYelwTWwhLgJUJeZspMeW5ROBbRL0DH+I1qSBjq2B2Yp9dEHh96oIw brdnd+JZmbR/Rx1vb9CfN+D/cEegj8HY3fvLYF0Tl0P8aj60bcky1xjdFkJhsOTl qLJQFPFTDdrqpQ9S7ZxAumuLFz/R/qhcNl9/ir+B2ptSn3hqA2z6j80bfZckzj/0 U74E59w9kRzlq+NtoxlNM41JMEbY0lAow2Z53oaDS3XyXr0uW5NZuX8w1lcEjqvj zNboicF+8CLW86Pmcf3sZl/WxDClGjt8O0tcy0JWJN7CwXS1BA8GcGrTSU7kZxVw SnEiKWCFvCYTYhppQebGjRmbR23L1ahDiS+KGOx9OpyKjOXyUYwS/6JYs4fsN7rv qQUKPPyEEaS4MQCZKyGOKl4gCLQcVuXoXTwwUCvmC5+BYmSWmLRS0XjC5C18XS/y AvGn4ehH93146Wvwnd6Ckc2PKrDkiouu9L2rcySSKQ01Y8na+UhMKMbIEhFxaTLA sL7N9E6ljf5AEMz/Ck+0QE7QHhxdtk47uQc61IxoDwkfyR0IRnyXJwUoJSw3n1qx +L5ZGtWjy6Y6eQ1/4E44xlZ/CBDWgzkRFFVP7U65X1r/qUi34v2pjPk0GLsxgXJr lWr1MEqdrqWIwMw48aiP =/VWd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-jMq8qHulsVqCCIMujYd0-- -- 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/