On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:29:29PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:07:52AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:30:18PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > just had a user report this against rc6.. > > > > > > # while true; do rmmod coretemp; modprobe coretemp; done > > > > > > > > > [15811.924167] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low! > > > [15811.924171] turning off the locking correctness validator. > > > [15811.924175] Pid: 10598, comm: modprobe Not tainted 3.1.0-rc6+ #5 > > > [15811.924178] Call Trace: > > > [15811.924187] [<ffffffff81081205>] ? up+0x39/0x3e > > > [15811.924193] [<ffffffff8108e556>] add_lock_to_list.constprop.22+0x45/0xa7 > > > [15811.924198] [<ffffffff81090c05>] __lock_acquire+0xb7f/0xd0c > > > [15811.924204] [<ffffffff81091594>] ? mark_held_locks+0x6d/0x95 > > > [15811.924210] [<ffffffff814e27d5>] ? __slab_alloc+0x41c/0x43d > > > [15811.924216] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c > > > [15811.924221] [<ffffffff81091295>] lock_acquire+0xf3/0x13e > > > [15811.924225] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c > > > [15811.924230] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c > > > [15811.924236] [<ffffffff814e96a3>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73 > > > [15811.924241] [<ffffffff812701d0>] ? kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c > > > [15811.924245] [<ffffffff8127012e>] ? kobject_get+0x18/0x1f > > > [15811.924250] [<ffffffff812701d0>] kobject_add_internal+0x9b/0x18c > > > [15811.924255] [<ffffffff812705fa>] kobject_add+0x91/0xa2 > > > [15811.924260] [<ffffffff814c5afd>] ? klist_init+0x33/0x46 > > > [15811.924265] [<ffffffff81337bc3>] device_add+0xd5/0x576 > > > [15811.924271] [<ffffffff81336ac3>] ? dev_set_name+0x41/0x43 > > > [15811.924277] [<ffffffff8133b8f1>] platform_device_add+0x111/0x15b > > > [15811.924283] [<ffffffffa0606cbd>] get_core_online+0x9b/0x143 [coretemp] > > > [15811.924290] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff > > > [15811.924296] [<ffffffffa005004b>] coretemp_init+0x4b/0x1000 [coretemp] > > > [15811.924302] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff > > > [15811.924308] [<ffffffff81002099>] do_one_initcall+0x7f/0x13a > > > [15811.924313] [<ffffffffa0050000>] ? 0xffffffffa004ffff > > > [15811.924319] [<ffffffff8109cacf>] sys_init_module+0x114/0x267 > > > [15811.924324] [<ffffffff814f0202>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > > > > [ ... ] Turns out I can trigger a similar message with any module which creates platform devices and/or sysfs attributes. Example with w83627ehf, using "while true; do rmmod w83627ehf; modprobe w83627ehf; done": Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823865] BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low! Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823871] turning off the locking correctness validator. Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823878] Pid: 1621, comm: rmmod Not tainted 3.1.0-rc6+ #1 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823882] Call Trace: Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823894] [<ffffffff810a02ef>] save_trace+0xcf/0xe0 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823901] [<ffffffff810a3003>] mark_lock+0x123/0x410 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823907] [<ffffffff810a3c56>] __lock_acquire+0x206/0x15d0 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823914] [<ffffffff810a3829>] ? debug_check_no_locks_freed+0xa9/0x170 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823920] [<ffffffff810a36e5>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x190 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823926] [<ffffffff810a5602>] lock_acquire+0xa2/0x130 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823935] [<ffffffff811ef393>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823943] [<ffffffff811eecb7>] sysfs_deactivate+0x117/0x160 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823949] [<ffffffff811ef393>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823957] [<ffffffff811ef393>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x43/0x70 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823963] [<ffffffff811ed5ab>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x9b/0xa0 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823969] [<ffffffff811ee287>] sysfs_remove_file+0x17/0x20 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823977] [<ffffffff813de4b7>] device_remove_file+0x17/0x20 Sep 18 10:25:47 groeck-desktop kernel: [ 377.823985] [<ffffffffa03931c2>] w83627ehf_device_remove_files+0x102/0x300 I have seen the same message with lm90, jc42, and ltc4261. Looking through the code, it appears the the lockdep checking code adds entries whenever a lock is added, but never removes anything (or I missed the removals). So I am not convinced that this is really a coretemp problem, but instead a generic problem caused by the way lockdep checks are implemented. The reason for getting a MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES instead of MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES error for coretemp might simply be that it generates more platform devices per instance than the other drivers. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
