Re: workqueue lockdep bug.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jiri Slaby wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:33:19 -0400
Dave Jones <[email protected]> wrote:

Andrew,
 I merged the workqueue changes from -mm into the Fedora-devel kernel to
kill off those billion cpufreq lockdep warnings. The bug has now mutated
into this:

(Trimmed version of log from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202223)


I don't get it.

Let me extend the output a little bit:

clock = mutex_lock(cpu_add_remove_lock)
wqlock = mutex_lock(workqueue_mutex)
slock = mutex_lock(cpu_chain.rwsem)
similar for cunlock, wqunlock, sunlock.

The number after colon is linenumber, where the mutex_XXX lies.
Prints are _after_ mutex_lock and _before_ mutex_unlock calls.

So here it comes:

[   30.947289] clock: 268
[   30.947340] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
[   30.947392] slock: 334
[   30.964622] wqlock: 689
[   30.964659] sunlock: 336

Isn't this strange for validator (lock1-lock2-unlock1 + (below)lock1-unlock2-unlock1)?

[   30.966762] Breaking affinity for irq 0
[   30.968116] CPU 1 is now offline
[   30.968155] lockdep: not fixing up alternatives.
[   30.968200]
[   30.968201] =======================================================
[   30.968269] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[   30.968307] 2.6.18-rc4-mm1-bug #11
[   30.968342] -------------------------------------------------------


 > Breaking affinity for irq 185
 > Breaking affinity for irq 193
 > Breaking affinity for irq 209
 > CPU 1 is now offline
 > lockdep: not fixing up alternatives.
 >
 > =======================================================
 > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
 > 2.6.17-1.2548.fc6 #1
 > -------------------------------------------------------
 > pm-hibernate/4335 is trying to acquire lock:
> ((cpu_chain).rwsem){..--}, at: [<c0430fa4>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x2d
 >
 > but task is already holding lock:
 >  (workqueue_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0612820>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
 >
 > which lock already depends on the new lock.
 >
 >
 > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
 >
 > -> #1 (workqueue_mutex){--..}:
 >        [<c043c08e>] lock_acquire+0x4b/0x6d
 >        [<c06126b1>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xbc/0x20a
 >        [<c0612820>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
 >        [<c0433c25>] workqueue_cpu_callback+0xfd/0x1ee
 >        [<c0614ef5>] notifier_call_chain+0x20/0x31
 >        [<c0430fb0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x1d/0x2d
 >        [<c043f4c5>] _cpu_down+0x47/0x1c4
 >        [<c043f805>] disable_nonboot_cpus+0x9b/0x11a
 >        [<c0445b32>] prepare_processes+0xe/0x41
 >        [<c0445d87>] pm_suspend_disk+0x9/0xf3
 >        [<c0444e12>] enter_state+0x54/0x1b7
 >        [<c0444ffb>] state_store+0x86/0x9c
 >        [<c04a9f88>] subsys_attr_store+0x20/0x25
 >        [<c04aa08c>] sysfs_write_file+0xab/0xd1
 >        [<c04732cb>] vfs_write+0xab/0x157
 >        [<c0473910>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
 >        [<c0403faf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

cpu_add_remove_lock -> cpu_chain.rwsem -> workqueue_mutex

 > -> #0 ((cpu_chain).rwsem){..--}:
 >        [<c043c08e>] lock_acquire+0x4b/0x6d
 >        [<c04390a0>] down_read+0x2d/0x40
 >        [<c0430fa4>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x2d
 >        [<c043f5aa>] _cpu_down+0x12c/0x1c4
 >        [<c043f805>] disable_nonboot_cpus+0x9b/0x11a
 >        [<c0445b32>] prepare_processes+0xe/0x41
 >        [<c0445d87>] pm_suspend_disk+0x9/0xf3
 >        [<c0444e12>] enter_state+0x54/0x1b7
 >        [<c0444ffb>] state_store+0x86/0x9c
 >        [<c04a9f88>] subsys_attr_store+0x20/0x25
 >        [<c04aa08c>] sysfs_write_file+0xab/0xd1
 >        [<c04732cb>] vfs_write+0xab/0x157
 >        [<c0473910>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
 >        [<c0403faf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

cpu_add_remove_lock -> cpu_chain.rwsem

 > other info that might help us debug this:
 >
 > 2 locks held by pm-hibernate/4335:
> #0: (cpu_add_remove_lock){--..}, at: [<c0612820>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
 >  #1:  (workqueue_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0612820>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
 >
 > stack backtrace:
 >  [<c04051ee>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x58/0x159
 >  [<c04057ea>] show_trace+0xd/0x10
 >  [<c0405903>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
 >  [<c043b176>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x59/0x64
 >  [<c043b98e>] __lock_acquire+0x80d/0x99c
 >  [<c043c08e>] lock_acquire+0x4b/0x6d
 >  [<c04390a0>] down_read+0x2d/0x40
 >  [<c0430fa4>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x2d
 >  [<c043f5aa>] _cpu_down+0x12c/0x1c4
 >  [<c043f805>] disable_nonboot_cpus+0x9b/0x11a
 >  [<c0445b32>] prepare_processes+0xe/0x41
 >  [<c0445d87>] pm_suspend_disk+0x9/0xf3
 >  [<c0444e12>] enter_state+0x54/0x1b7
 >  [<c0444ffb>] state_store+0x86/0x9c
 >  [<c04a9f88>] subsys_attr_store+0x20/0x25
 >  [<c04aa08c>] sysfs_write_file+0xab/0xd1
 >  [<c04732cb>] vfs_write+0xab/0x157
 >  [<c0473910>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
 >  [<c0403faf>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

[   30.981176]  [<c0170514>] sys_write+0x47/0x6e
[   30.981249]  [<c01031fb>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[   30.981322]  =======================
[   30.981378] slock: 334

The one, that failed.

[   30.981882] wqunlock: 702
[   30.981939] sunlock: 336
[   30.981996] CPU1 is down
[   30.982036] cunlock: 309
[   30.982075] Stopping tasks: ============
[   31.149008] ==================|

cpu_add_remove_lock -> cpu_chain.rwsem

I don't see anywhere where this process took workqueue_mutex.

Hope this helps?

I can't see any difference in 2.6.18-rc6-mm1. Was this somehow processed?

thanks,
--
http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/            Jiri Slaby
faculty of informatics, masaryk university, brno, cz
e-mail: jirislaby gmail com, gpg pubkey fingerprint:
B674 9967 0407 CE62 ACC8  22A0 32CC 55C3 39D4 7A7E
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux