On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Here is the possible fix for this: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/8/161 > > 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-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- Regards dave -- 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
