On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:11:44 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:17:41 PST, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said: > > The mm-of-the-moment snapshot 2010-02-10-16-17 has been uploaded to > > > > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ > > Seen at boot: > > [ 0.207242] ACPI: (supports S0 S5) > [ 0.207257] ACPI: Using IOAPIC for interrupt routing > [ 0.335315] > [ 0.335316] ============================================= > [ 0.335483] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > [ 0.335572] 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210 #1 > [ 0.335658] --------------------------------------------- > [ 0.335746] swapper/1 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 0.335834] (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812eb521>] __driver_attach+0x47/0x80 > [ 0.335999] > [ 0.335999] but task is already holding lock: > [ 0.335999] (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812eb513>] __driver_attach+0x39/0x80 > [ 0.335999] > [ 0.335999] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 0.335999] 1 lock held by swapper/1: > [ 0.335999] #0: (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812eb513>] __driver_attach+0x39/0x80 > [ 0.335999] > [ 0.335999] stack backtrace: > [ 0.335999] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.33-rc7-mmotm0210 #1 > [ 0.335999] Call Trace: > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81063b47>] __lock_acquire+0xc77/0xcee > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81061fad>] ? mark_lock+0x2d/0x22c > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81063c89>] lock_acquire+0xcb/0xe8 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff810621fe>] ? mark_held_locks+0x52/0x70 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81568c9d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5c/0x5aa > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff815583f8>] ? klist_next+0x24/0xd7 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] ? __driver_attach+0x47/0x80 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb4da>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81569291>] mutex_lock_nested+0x34/0x39 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb521>] __driver_attach+0x47/0x80 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb4da>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb4da>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x80 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eaa43>] bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x89 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb28a>] driver_attach+0x19/0x1b > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eaed5>] bus_add_driver+0xb4/0x203 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff812eb833>] driver_register+0xb8/0x129 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81231604>] acpi_bus_register_driver+0x3e/0x40 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b45094>] acpi_ec_init+0x37/0x55 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b44ef1>] acpi_init+0x115/0x12a > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b44ddc>] ? acpi_init+0x0/0x12a > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff810001ef>] do_one_initcall+0x59/0x14e > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b26655>] kernel_init+0x14d/0x1a3 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81003354>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff8156b0c0>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81b26508>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x1a3 > [ 0.335999] [<ffffffff81003350>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10 > [ 0.340036] ACPI: EC: GPE = 0x11, I/O: command/status = 0x934, data = 0x930 > driver_attach() got converted from sem to mutex in linux-next. So this is probably an old bug which just got exposed. Or maybe not. Thomas, has that patch been in some other tree (rt?) for a while? If so, was this bug observed in that tree? If not, it might be new. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
