On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 04:01 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:31:28 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 01:21 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 4 of December 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > [ 34.455096] ipw2200: Failed to send WEP_KEY: Command timed out. > > > > [ 34.911876] Syncing filesystems ... done. > > > > [ 34.934526] Freezing user space processes ... WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2662 check_flags() > > > > [ 34.934917] Pid: 1922, comm: dbus-daemon Not tainted 2.6.24-rc3-mm3 #2 > > > > [ 34.935036] [<c0104853>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x12/0x25 > > > > [ 34.935142] [<c010506c>] show_trace+0xd/0x10 > > > > [ 34.935231] [<c0105850>] dump_stack+0x55/0x5d > > > > [ 34.935322] [<c0136125>] check_flags+0x7f/0x11a > > > > [ 34.935417] [<c0139210>] lock_acquire+0x3a/0x86 > > > > [ 34.935511] [<c0318faf>] _spin_lock+0x1c/0x49 > > > > [ 34.935603] [<c0140fc7>] refrigerator+0x13/0xc8 > > > > [ 34.935697] [<c01270ac>] get_signal_to_deliver+0x34/0x2e8 > > > > [ 34.935807] [<c0102edc>] do_notify_resume+0x8c/0x6fe > > > > [ 34.935907] [<c0103a2c>] work_notifysig+0x13/0x1b > > > > [ 34.936004] ======================= > > > > [ 34.936072] irq event stamp: 253 > > > > [ 34.936133] hardirqs last enabled at (253): [<c0103a8d>] syscall_exit_work+0x11/0x26 > > > > [ 34.936294] hardirqs last disabled at (252): [<c0103956>] syscall_exit+0x14/0x25 > > > > [ 34.936446] softirqs last enabled at (0): [<c011baf9>] copy_process+0x300/0x1246 > > > > [ 34.936599] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<00000000>] 0x0 > > > > [ 34.954308] (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done. > > > > [ 34.954389] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.00 seconds) done. > > > > > > Hmm, do I understand correctly that lockdep expects us to disable interrupts > > > before acquiring the task lock in refrigerator()? That would be strange. > > > > > > Ingo, can you have a look at this, please? > > > > No its complaining that the IRQ state changed without anybody telling it > > about it. Usually an unannotated cli/sti. > > > > The particular line it warns, (lockdep.c:2662), suggests... > > > > /me grabs a copy of 24-rc3-mm2 > > > > ... that hardirqs are disabled, but irq tracking thinks they are still > > enabled. So that would be an unannotated cli. > > > > It would be nice to make that warning tell us that - we've hit it a > few times and I never knew this was the reason. Ingo just did that, patch should be coming to a lockdep repo near you soon :-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- suspend-related lockdep warning
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
- From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
- Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- suspend-related lockdep warning
- Prev by Date: Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
- Next by Date: Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
- Previous by thread: Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
- Next by thread: Re: suspend-related lockdep warning
- Index(es):
 |