On 02/17/2011 12:28 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:43:57AM +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:03 AM, David Miller<davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Yong Zhang<yong.zhang0@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:37:30 +0800
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi All,
I am running a 2.6.38-rc4-next-20110215+ kernel on qemu x86_64 and the
following traces appear in the console:
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: ------------[ cut here ]------------
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:2323
trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xb9/0x16c()
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: Hardware name: Bochs
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: Pid: 1477, comm: mountall Not tainted
2.6.38-rc4-next-20110215+ #74
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: Call Trace:
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel:<IRQ> [<ffffffff8102b8a5>] ?
warn_slowpath_common+0x7b/0x93
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: [<ffffffff8146c097>] ?
_raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x30
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: [<ffffffff8102b8d2>] ?
warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x17
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: [<ffffffff8104f796>] ?
trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xb9/0x16c
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: [<ffffffff8104f856>] ?
trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: [<ffffffff8146c097>] ?
_raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x30
Feb 15 15:00:24 lucid kernel: [<ffffffff812e167e>] ?
do_ide_request+0x32/0x590
Seems related to IDE SUBSYSTEM
Which hasn't had any changes in the past release.
OK.
Cc'ing Tejun Heo
For the back trace, I think __blk_run_queue() is the ligament.
As from the comment of __blk_run_queue(), it must be called
with the queue lock and interrupts disabled. And the lock
is hold through spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags); at
blk_end_bidi_request().
But in do_ide_request(), it realse the lock through
spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock); which make the state
inconsistent.
BTW, do_ide_request() also say it might_sleep(), this warning
also trigger in Daniel's log.
This seems to be the same problem Jan reported and fixed by the
following patches.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1101766/raw
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/48819/raw
Can you please test whether these two patches fix the problem?
Thanks Tejun !
I applied these patches to linux-next and I blindly fixed some minors
conflicts. AFAICT, the problem does no longer occur and it seems the
patches fix the problem. I am not sure I resolved the conflict correctly
as I know nothing about this subsystem. Shall I resend these patches for
inclusion and you check they are correct ?
-- Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
