Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 at 13:34, Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 at 16:28, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
> > Got during suspend to disk:
>
> I got a similar message on a powerpc G4 system, right after bootup (no
> suspend involved):
>
> http://nerdbynature.de/bits/3.8.0-rc1/
FWIW, this is still present with 3.8.0-rc2.
C.
> [ 97.803049] ==
> [ 97.803051] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 97.803059] 3.8.0-rc1-dirty #2 Not tainted
> [ 97.803060] ---
> [ 97.803066] kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 97.803097] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: []
> __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x88
> [ 97.803099]
> [ 97.803099] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 97.803110] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
> console_callback+0x20/0x194
> [ 97.803112]
> [ 97.803112] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> ...and on it goes. Please see the URL above for the whole dmesg and
> .config.
>
> @Li Zhong: I have applied your fix for the "MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too
>low" warning[0] to 3.8-rc1 (hence the -dirty flag), but in the
>backtrace "ret_from_kernel_thread" shows up again. FWIW, your
>patch helped to make the "MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low"
>warning go away in 3.7.0-rc7 and it did not re-appear ever
>since.
>
> Thanks,
> Christian.
>
> [0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1211.3/01917.html
>
> > [ 269.784867] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > [ 269.784869] 3.8.0-rc1 #1 Not tainted
> > [ 269.784870] ---
> > [ 269.784871] kworker/u:3/56 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 269.784878] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at:
> > []
> > __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
> > [ 269.784879]
> > [ 269.784879] but task is already holding lock:
> > [ 269.784884] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
> > i915_drm_freeze+0x9e/0xbb
> > [ 269.784884]
> > [ 269.784884] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > [ 269.784884]
> > [ 269.784885]
> > [ 269.784885] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [ 269.784887]
> > [ 269.784887] -> #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
> > [ 269.784890][] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
> > [ 269.784893][] console_lock+0x59/0x5b
> > [ 269.784897][] register_con_driver+0x36/0x128
> > [ 269.784899][] take_over_console+0x1e/0x45
> > [ 269.784903][] fbcon_takeover+0x56/0x98
> > [ 269.784906][] fbcon_event_notify+0x2c1/0x5ea
> > [ 269.784909][] notifier_call_chain+0x67/0x92
> > [ 269.784911][]
> > __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5f/0x80
> > [ 269.784912][]
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> > [ 269.784915][] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
> > [ 269.784917][] register_framebuffer+0x20a/0x26e
> > [ 269.784920][]
> > drm_fb_helper_single_fb_probe+0x1ce/0x297
> > [ 269.784922][]
> > drm_fb_helper_initial_config+0x1d7/0x1ef
> > [ 269.784924][] intel_fbdev_init+0x6f/0x82
> > [ 269.784927][] i915_driver_load+0xa9e/0xc78
> > [ 269.784929][] drm_get_pci_dev+0x165/0x26d
> > [ 269.784931][] i915_pci_probe+0x60/0x69
> > [ 269.784933][] local_pci_probe+0x39/0x61
> > [ 269.784935][] pci_device_probe+0xba/0xe0
> > [ 269.784938][] driver_probe_device+0x99/0x1c4
> > [ 269.784940][] __driver_attach+0x4e/0x6f
> > [ 269.784942][] bus_for_each_dev+0x52/0x84
> > [ 269.784944][] driver_attach+0x19/0x1b
> > [ 269.784946][] bus_add_driver+0xdf/0x203
> > [ 269.784948][] driver_register+0x8e/0x114
> > [ 269.784952][] __pci_register_driver+0x5d/0x62
> > [ 269.784953][] drm_pci_init+0x81/0xe6
> > [ 269.784957][] i915_init+0x66/0x68
> > [ 269.784959][] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x136
> > [ 269.784962][] kernel_init+0x141/0x296
> > [ 269.784964][] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> > [ 269.784966]
> > [ 269.784966] -> #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
> > [ 269.784967][] __lock_acquire+0xa7e/0xddd
> > [ 269.784969][] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
> > [ 269.784971][] down_read+0x34/0x43
> > [ 269.784973][]
> > __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
> > [ 269.784975][]
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> > [ 269.784977][] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
> > [ 269.784979][] fb_set_suspend+0x22/0x4d
> > [ 269.784981][] intel_fbdev_set_suspend+0x20/0x22
> > [ 269.784983][] i915_drm_freeze+0xab/0xbb
> > [ 269.784985][] i915_pm_freeze+0x3d/0x41
> > [ 269.784987][] pci_pm_freeze+0x65/0x8d
> > [ 269.784990][] dpm_run_callback.isra.3+0x27/0x56
> > [ 269.784993][]
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 at 13:34, Christian Kujau wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 at 16:28, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
Got during suspend to disk:
I got a similar message on a powerpc G4 system, right after bootup (no
suspend involved):
http://nerdbynature.de/bits/3.8.0-rc1/
FWIW, this is still present with 3.8.0-rc2.
C.
[ 97.803049] ==
[ 97.803051] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 97.803059] 3.8.0-rc1-dirty #2 Not tainted
[ 97.803060] ---
[ 97.803066] kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 97.803097] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [c00606a0]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x88
[ 97.803099]
[ 97.803099] but task is already holding lock:
[ 97.803110] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [c03b9fd0]
console_callback+0x20/0x194
[ 97.803112]
[ 97.803112] which lock already depends on the new lock.
...and on it goes. Please see the URL above for the whole dmesg and
.config.
@Li Zhong: I have applied your fix for the MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too
low warning[0] to 3.8-rc1 (hence the -dirty flag), but in the
backtrace ret_from_kernel_thread shows up again. FWIW, your
patch helped to make the MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low
warning go away in 3.7.0-rc7 and it did not re-appear ever
since.
Thanks,
Christian.
[0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1211.3/01917.html
[ 269.784867] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 269.784869] 3.8.0-rc1 #1 Not tainted
[ 269.784870] ---
[ 269.784871] kworker/u:3/56 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 269.784878] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at:
[81062a1d]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
[ 269.784879]
[ 269.784879] but task is already holding lock:
[ 269.784884] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [812ee4ce]
i915_drm_freeze+0x9e/0xbb
[ 269.784884]
[ 269.784884] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 269.784884]
[ 269.784885]
[ 269.784885] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 269.784887]
[ 269.784887] - #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
[ 269.784890][810890e4] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
[ 269.784893][810405a1] console_lock+0x59/0x5b
[ 269.784897][812ba125] register_con_driver+0x36/0x128
[ 269.784899][812bb27e] take_over_console+0x1e/0x45
[ 269.784903][81257a04] fbcon_takeover+0x56/0x98
[ 269.784906][8125b857] fbcon_event_notify+0x2c1/0x5ea
[ 269.784909][8149a211] notifier_call_chain+0x67/0x92
[ 269.784911][81062a33]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5f/0x80
[ 269.784912][81062a63]
blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
[ 269.784915][8124e85e] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
[ 269.784917][812505d7] register_framebuffer+0x20a/0x26e
[ 269.784920][812d3ca0]
drm_fb_helper_single_fb_probe+0x1ce/0x297
[ 269.784922][812d3f40]
drm_fb_helper_initial_config+0x1d7/0x1ef
[ 269.784924][8132cee2] intel_fbdev_init+0x6f/0x82
[ 269.784927][812f22f6] i915_driver_load+0xa9e/0xc78
[ 269.784929][812e020c] drm_get_pci_dev+0x165/0x26d
[ 269.784931][812ee8da] i915_pci_probe+0x60/0x69
[ 269.784933][8123fe8e] local_pci_probe+0x39/0x61
[ 269.784935][812400f5] pci_device_probe+0xba/0xe0
[ 269.784938][8133d3b6] driver_probe_device+0x99/0x1c4
[ 269.784940][8133d52f] __driver_attach+0x4e/0x6f
[ 269.784942][8133bae1] bus_for_each_dev+0x52/0x84
[ 269.784944][8133cec6] driver_attach+0x19/0x1b
[ 269.784946][8133cb65] bus_add_driver+0xdf/0x203
[ 269.784948][8133dad3] driver_register+0x8e/0x114
[ 269.784952][8123f581] __pci_register_driver+0x5d/0x62
[ 269.784953][812e0395] drm_pci_init+0x81/0xe6
[ 269.784957][81af7612] i915_init+0x66/0x68
[ 269.784959][810020b4] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x136
[ 269.784962][8147ceaa] kernel_init+0x141/0x296
[ 269.784964][8149c7bc] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 269.784966]
[ 269.784966] - #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
[ 269.784967][81088955] __lock_acquire+0xa7e/0xddd
[ 269.784969][810890e4] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
[ 269.784971][81495092] down_read+0x34/0x43
[ 269.784973][81062a1d]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
[ 269.784975][81062a63]
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:03:24AM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 16:36 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:34:39AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > It seems that I'm running into the same locking issue. My setup is:
> > >
> > > - i.MX28 (ARM)
> > > - v3.8-rc1
> > > - mxs_defconfig
> > - The warning is seen when LCD is blanking
> > >
> >
> > The warning disappears after reverting patch daee779 (console: implement
> > lockdep support for console_lock). Is it suggesting that the mxs
> > frame buffer driver (drivers/video/mxsfb.c) is doing something bad?
> >
> > Shawn
> >
> > >
> > > [ 602.229899] ==
> > > [ 602.229905] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > [ 602.229926] 3.8.0-rc1-3-gde4ae7f #767 Not tainted
> > > [ 602.229933] ---
> > > [ 602.229951] kworker/0:1/21 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [ 602.230037] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: []
> > > __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
>
> You want this patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1757061/
>
Thanks for the pointer, Peter. It does fix the problem for me.
Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 08:03:24AM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 16:36 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:34:39AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
It seems that I'm running into the same locking issue. My setup is:
- i.MX28 (ARM)
- v3.8-rc1
- mxs_defconfig
- The warning is seen when LCD is blanking
The warning disappears after reverting patch daee779 (console: implement
lockdep support for console_lock). Is it suggesting that the mxs
frame buffer driver (drivers/video/mxsfb.c) is doing something bad?
Shawn
[ 602.229899] ==
[ 602.229905] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 602.229926] 3.8.0-rc1-3-gde4ae7f #767 Not tainted
[ 602.229933] ---
[ 602.229951] kworker/0:1/21 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 602.230037] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [c0041f34]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
You want this patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1757061/
Thanks for the pointer, Peter. It does fix the problem for me.
Shawn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 16:36 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:34:39AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > It seems that I'm running into the same locking issue. My setup is:
> >
> > - i.MX28 (ARM)
> > - v3.8-rc1
> > - mxs_defconfig
> - The warning is seen when LCD is blanking
> >
>
> The warning disappears after reverting patch daee779 (console: implement
> lockdep support for console_lock). Is it suggesting that the mxs
> frame buffer driver (drivers/video/mxsfb.c) is doing something bad?
>
> Shawn
>
> >
> > [ 602.229899] ==
> > [ 602.229905] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > [ 602.229926] 3.8.0-rc1-3-gde4ae7f #767 Not tainted
> > [ 602.229933] ---
> > [ 602.229951] kworker/0:1/21 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 602.230037] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: []
> > __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
You want this patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1757061/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:34:39AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> It seems that I'm running into the same locking issue. My setup is:
>
> - i.MX28 (ARM)
> - v3.8-rc1
> - mxs_defconfig
- The warning is seen when LCD is blanking
>
The warning disappears after reverting patch daee779 (console: implement
lockdep support for console_lock). Is it suggesting that the mxs
frame buffer driver (drivers/video/mxsfb.c) is doing something bad?
Shawn
>
> [ 602.229899] ==
> [ 602.229905] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 602.229926] 3.8.0-rc1-3-gde4ae7f #767 Not tainted
> [ 602.229933] ---
> [ 602.229951] kworker/0:1/21 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 602.230037] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: []
> __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
> [ 602.230047]
> [ 602.230047] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 602.230090] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
> console_callback+0xc/0x12c
> [ 602.230098]
> [ 602.230098] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 602.230098]
> [ 602.230104]
> [ 602.230104] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 602.230126]
> [ 602.230126] -> #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
> [ 602.230174][] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124
> [ 602.230205][] console_lock+0x58/0x6c
> [ 602.230250][] register_con_driver+0x38/0x138
> [ 602.230284][] take_over_console+0x18/0x44
> [ 602.230314][] fbcon_takeover+0x64/0xc8
> [ 602.230352][] notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x80
> [ 602.230386][] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x48/0x60
> [ 602.230416][] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20
> [ 602.230459][] register_framebuffer+0x170/0x250
> [ 602.230492][] mxsfb_probe+0x574/0x738
> [ 602.230528][] platform_drv_probe+0x14/0x18
> [ 602.230556][] driver_probe_device+0x78/0x20c
> [ 602.230583][] __driver_attach+0x94/0x98
> [ 602.230610][] bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x7c
> [ 602.230636][] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
> [ 602.230662][] driver_register+0x78/0x144
> [ 602.230690][] do_one_initcall+0x30/0x16c
> [ 602.230721][] kernel_init+0xf4/0x290
> [ 602.230756][] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
> [ 602.230781]
> [ 602.230781] -> #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
> [ 602.230825][] __lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0
> [ 602.230854][] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124
> [ 602.230895][] down_read+0x3c/0x4c
> [ 602.230933][] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
> [ 602.230962][] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20
> [ 602.230997][] fb_blank+0x34/0x98
> [ 602.231024][] fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c
> [ 602.231065][] do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268
> [ 602.231093][] console_callback+0x68/0x12c
> [ 602.231121][] process_one_work+0x1a8/0x560
> [ 602.231145][] worker_thread+0x160/0x480
> [ 602.231180][] kthread+0xa4/0xb0
> [ 602.231210][] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
> [ 602.231218]
> [ 602.231218] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 602.231218]
> [ 602.231225] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 602.231225]
> [ 602.231230]CPU0CPU1
> [ 602.231235]
> [ 602.231249] lock(console_lock);
> [ 602.231263]lock((fb_notifier_list).rwsem);
> [ 602.231275]lock(console_lock);
> [ 602.231287] lock((fb_notifier_list).rwsem);
> [ 602.231292]
> [ 602.231292] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 602.231292]
> [ 602.231305] 3 locks held by kworker/0:1/21:
> [ 602.231345] #0: (events){.+.+.+}, at: []
> process_one_work+0x128/0x560
> [ 602.231388] #1: (console_work){+.+...}, at: []
> process_one_work+0x128/0x560
> [ 602.231430] #2: (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
> console_callback+0xc/0x12c
> [ 602.231437]
> [ 602.231437] stack backtrace:
> [ 602.231491] [] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from []
> (print_circular_bug+0x254/0x2a0)
> [ 602.231547] [] (print_circular_bug+0x254/0x2a0) from
> [] (__lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0)
> [ 602.231596] [] (__lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0) from []
> (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124)
> [ 602.231640] [] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124) from []
> (down_read+0x3c/0x4c)
> [ 602.231694] [] (down_read+0x3c/0x4c) from []
> (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60)
> [ 602.231741] [] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60) from
> [] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20)
> [ 602.231791] [] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20) from
> [] (fb_blank+0x34/0x98)
> [ 602.231836] [] (fb_blank+0x34/0x98) from []
> (fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c)
> [ 602.231886] [] (fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c) from []
> (do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268)
> [ 602.231931] [] (do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268) from []
> (console_callback+0x68/0x12c)
> [ 602.231970] [] (console_callback+0x68/0x12c)
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:34:39AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
It seems that I'm running into the same locking issue. My setup is:
- i.MX28 (ARM)
- v3.8-rc1
- mxs_defconfig
- The warning is seen when LCD is blanking
The warning disappears after reverting patch daee779 (console: implement
lockdep support for console_lock). Is it suggesting that the mxs
frame buffer driver (drivers/video/mxsfb.c) is doing something bad?
Shawn
[ 602.229899] ==
[ 602.229905] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 602.229926] 3.8.0-rc1-3-gde4ae7f #767 Not tainted
[ 602.229933] ---
[ 602.229951] kworker/0:1/21 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 602.230037] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [c0041f34]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
[ 602.230047]
[ 602.230047] but task is already holding lock:
[ 602.230090] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [c02a1d60]
console_callback+0xc/0x12c
[ 602.230098]
[ 602.230098] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 602.230098]
[ 602.230104]
[ 602.230104] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 602.230126]
[ 602.230126] - #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
[ 602.230174][c005cb20] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124
[ 602.230205][c001dc78] console_lock+0x58/0x6c
[ 602.230250][c029ea60] register_con_driver+0x38/0x138
[ 602.230284][c02a0018] take_over_console+0x18/0x44
[ 602.230314][c027bc80] fbcon_takeover+0x64/0xc8
[ 602.230352][c0041c94] notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x80
[ 602.230386][c0041f50] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x48/0x60
[ 602.230416][c0041f80] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20
[ 602.230459][c0275efc] register_framebuffer+0x170/0x250
[ 602.230492][c02837f4] mxsfb_probe+0x574/0x738
[ 602.230528][c02b276c] platform_drv_probe+0x14/0x18
[ 602.230556][c02b14cc] driver_probe_device+0x78/0x20c
[ 602.230583][c02b16f4] __driver_attach+0x94/0x98
[ 602.230610][c02afdb4] bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x7c
[ 602.230636][c02b0d14] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
[ 602.230662][c02b1bb8] driver_register+0x78/0x144
[ 602.230690][c00087c8] do_one_initcall+0x30/0x16c
[ 602.230721][c0428fcc] kernel_init+0xf4/0x290
[ 602.230756][c000e9c8] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
[ 602.230781]
[ 602.230781] - #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
[ 602.230825][c005bfa0] __lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0
[ 602.230854][c005cb20] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124
[ 602.230895][c0430148] down_read+0x3c/0x4c
[ 602.230933][c0041f34] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
[ 602.230962][c0041f80] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20
[ 602.230997][c0274a78] fb_blank+0x34/0x98
[ 602.231024][c027c7b8] fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c
[ 602.231065][c029f194] do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268
[ 602.231093][c02a1dbc] console_callback+0x68/0x12c
[ 602.231121][c00368c0] process_one_work+0x1a8/0x560
[ 602.231145][c0036fd8] worker_thread+0x160/0x480
[ 602.231180][c003c040] kthread+0xa4/0xb0
[ 602.231210][c000e9c8] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
[ 602.231218]
[ 602.231218] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 602.231218]
[ 602.231225] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 602.231225]
[ 602.231230]CPU0CPU1
[ 602.231235]
[ 602.231249] lock(console_lock);
[ 602.231263]lock((fb_notifier_list).rwsem);
[ 602.231275]lock(console_lock);
[ 602.231287] lock((fb_notifier_list).rwsem);
[ 602.231292]
[ 602.231292] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 602.231292]
[ 602.231305] 3 locks held by kworker/0:1/21:
[ 602.231345] #0: (events){.+.+.+}, at: [c0036840]
process_one_work+0x128/0x560
[ 602.231388] #1: (console_work){+.+...}, at: [c0036840]
process_one_work+0x128/0x560
[ 602.231430] #2: (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [c02a1d60]
console_callback+0xc/0x12c
[ 602.231437]
[ 602.231437] stack backtrace:
[ 602.231491] [c0013e58] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [c042b0e4]
(print_circular_bug+0x254/0x2a0)
[ 602.231547] [c042b0e4] (print_circular_bug+0x254/0x2a0) from
[c005bfa0] (__lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0)
[ 602.231596] [c005bfa0] (__lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0) from [c005cb20]
(lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124)
[ 602.231640] [c005cb20] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124) from [c0430148]
(down_read+0x3c/0x4c)
[ 602.231694] [c0430148] (down_read+0x3c/0x4c) from [c0041f34]
(__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60)
[ 602.231741] [c0041f34] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60) from
[c0041f80] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20)
[ 602.231791] [c0041f80] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20) from
[c0274a78]
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Thu, 2012-12-27 at 16:36 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:34:39AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
It seems that I'm running into the same locking issue. My setup is:
- i.MX28 (ARM)
- v3.8-rc1
- mxs_defconfig
- The warning is seen when LCD is blanking
The warning disappears after reverting patch daee779 (console: implement
lockdep support for console_lock). Is it suggesting that the mxs
frame buffer driver (drivers/video/mxsfb.c) is doing something bad?
Shawn
[ 602.229899] ==
[ 602.229905] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 602.229926] 3.8.0-rc1-3-gde4ae7f #767 Not tainted
[ 602.229933] ---
[ 602.229951] kworker/0:1/21 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 602.230037] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [c0041f34]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
You want this patch https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1757061/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Sun, 2012-12-23 at 13:34 -0800, Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 at 16:28, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
> > Got during suspend to disk:
>
> I got a similar message on a powerpc G4 system, right after bootup (no
> suspend involved):
>
> http://nerdbynature.de/bits/3.8.0-rc1/
>
> [ 97.803049] ==
> [ 97.803051] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 97.803059] 3.8.0-rc1-dirty #2 Not tainted
> [ 97.803060] ---
> [ 97.803066] kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 97.803097] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: []
> __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x88
> [ 97.803099]
> [ 97.803099] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 97.803110] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
> console_callback+0x20/0x194
> [ 97.803112]
> [ 97.803112] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> ...and on it goes. Please see the URL above for the whole dmesg and
> .config.
>
> @Li Zhong: I have applied your fix for the "MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too
>low" warning[0] to 3.8-rc1 (hence the -dirty flag), but in the
>backtrace "ret_from_kernel_thread" shows up again. FWIW, your
>patch helped to make the "MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low"
>warning go away in 3.7.0-rc7 and it did not re-appear ever
>since.
The patch fixing "MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low" warning clears the
stack back chain at "ret_from_kernel_thread", so I think it's fine to
see it on the top of the stack.
Thank, Zhong
> Thanks,
> Christian.
>
> [0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1211.3/01917.html
>
> > [ 269.784867] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > [ 269.784869] 3.8.0-rc1 #1 Not tainted
> > [ 269.784870] ---
> > [ 269.784871] kworker/u:3/56 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 269.784878] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at:
> > []
> > __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
> > [ 269.784879]
> > [ 269.784879] but task is already holding lock:
> > [ 269.784884] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
> > i915_drm_freeze+0x9e/0xbb
> > [ 269.784884]
> > [ 269.784884] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > [ 269.784884]
> > [ 269.784885]
> > [ 269.784885] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [ 269.784887]
> > [ 269.784887] -> #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
> > [ 269.784890][] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
> > [ 269.784893][] console_lock+0x59/0x5b
> > [ 269.784897][] register_con_driver+0x36/0x128
> > [ 269.784899][] take_over_console+0x1e/0x45
> > [ 269.784903][] fbcon_takeover+0x56/0x98
> > [ 269.784906][] fbcon_event_notify+0x2c1/0x5ea
> > [ 269.784909][] notifier_call_chain+0x67/0x92
> > [ 269.784911][]
> > __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5f/0x80
> > [ 269.784912][]
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> > [ 269.784915][] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
> > [ 269.784917][] register_framebuffer+0x20a/0x26e
> > [ 269.784920][]
> > drm_fb_helper_single_fb_probe+0x1ce/0x297
> > [ 269.784922][]
> > drm_fb_helper_initial_config+0x1d7/0x1ef
> > [ 269.784924][] intel_fbdev_init+0x6f/0x82
> > [ 269.784927][] i915_driver_load+0xa9e/0xc78
> > [ 269.784929][] drm_get_pci_dev+0x165/0x26d
> > [ 269.784931][] i915_pci_probe+0x60/0x69
> > [ 269.784933][] local_pci_probe+0x39/0x61
> > [ 269.784935][] pci_device_probe+0xba/0xe0
> > [ 269.784938][] driver_probe_device+0x99/0x1c4
> > [ 269.784940][] __driver_attach+0x4e/0x6f
> > [ 269.784942][] bus_for_each_dev+0x52/0x84
> > [ 269.784944][] driver_attach+0x19/0x1b
> > [ 269.784946][] bus_add_driver+0xdf/0x203
> > [ 269.784948][] driver_register+0x8e/0x114
> > [ 269.784952][] __pci_register_driver+0x5d/0x62
> > [ 269.784953][] drm_pci_init+0x81/0xe6
> > [ 269.784957][] i915_init+0x66/0x68
> > [ 269.784959][] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x136
> > [ 269.784962][] kernel_init+0x141/0x296
> > [ 269.784964][] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> > [ 269.784966]
> > [ 269.784966] -> #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
> > [ 269.784967][] __lock_acquire+0xa7e/0xddd
> > [ 269.784969][] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
> > [ 269.784971][] down_read+0x34/0x43
> > [ 269.784973][]
> > __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
> > [ 269.784975][]
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> > [ 269.784977][] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
> > [ 269.784979][] fb_set_suspend+0x22/0x4d
> > [ 269.784981][] intel_fbdev_set_suspend+0x20/0x22
> > [ 269.784983][] i915_drm_freeze+0xab/0xbb
> > [ 269.784985][] i915_pm_freeze+0x3d/0x41
>
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Sun, 2012-12-23 at 13:34 -0800, Christian Kujau wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 at 16:28, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
Got during suspend to disk:
I got a similar message on a powerpc G4 system, right after bootup (no
suspend involved):
http://nerdbynature.de/bits/3.8.0-rc1/
[ 97.803049] ==
[ 97.803051] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 97.803059] 3.8.0-rc1-dirty #2 Not tainted
[ 97.803060] ---
[ 97.803066] kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 97.803097] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [c00606a0]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x88
[ 97.803099]
[ 97.803099] but task is already holding lock:
[ 97.803110] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [c03b9fd0]
console_callback+0x20/0x194
[ 97.803112]
[ 97.803112] which lock already depends on the new lock.
...and on it goes. Please see the URL above for the whole dmesg and
.config.
@Li Zhong: I have applied your fix for the MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too
low warning[0] to 3.8-rc1 (hence the -dirty flag), but in the
backtrace ret_from_kernel_thread shows up again. FWIW, your
patch helped to make the MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low
warning go away in 3.7.0-rc7 and it did not re-appear ever
since.
The patch fixing MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low warning clears the
stack back chain at ret_from_kernel_thread, so I think it's fine to
see it on the top of the stack.
Thank, Zhong
Thanks,
Christian.
[0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1211.3/01917.html
[ 269.784867] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 269.784869] 3.8.0-rc1 #1 Not tainted
[ 269.784870] ---
[ 269.784871] kworker/u:3/56 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 269.784878] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at:
[81062a1d]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
[ 269.784879]
[ 269.784879] but task is already holding lock:
[ 269.784884] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [812ee4ce]
i915_drm_freeze+0x9e/0xbb
[ 269.784884]
[ 269.784884] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 269.784884]
[ 269.784885]
[ 269.784885] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 269.784887]
[ 269.784887] - #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
[ 269.784890][810890e4] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
[ 269.784893][810405a1] console_lock+0x59/0x5b
[ 269.784897][812ba125] register_con_driver+0x36/0x128
[ 269.784899][812bb27e] take_over_console+0x1e/0x45
[ 269.784903][81257a04] fbcon_takeover+0x56/0x98
[ 269.784906][8125b857] fbcon_event_notify+0x2c1/0x5ea
[ 269.784909][8149a211] notifier_call_chain+0x67/0x92
[ 269.784911][81062a33]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5f/0x80
[ 269.784912][81062a63]
blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
[ 269.784915][8124e85e] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
[ 269.784917][812505d7] register_framebuffer+0x20a/0x26e
[ 269.784920][812d3ca0]
drm_fb_helper_single_fb_probe+0x1ce/0x297
[ 269.784922][812d3f40]
drm_fb_helper_initial_config+0x1d7/0x1ef
[ 269.784924][8132cee2] intel_fbdev_init+0x6f/0x82
[ 269.784927][812f22f6] i915_driver_load+0xa9e/0xc78
[ 269.784929][812e020c] drm_get_pci_dev+0x165/0x26d
[ 269.784931][812ee8da] i915_pci_probe+0x60/0x69
[ 269.784933][8123fe8e] local_pci_probe+0x39/0x61
[ 269.784935][812400f5] pci_device_probe+0xba/0xe0
[ 269.784938][8133d3b6] driver_probe_device+0x99/0x1c4
[ 269.784940][8133d52f] __driver_attach+0x4e/0x6f
[ 269.784942][8133bae1] bus_for_each_dev+0x52/0x84
[ 269.784944][8133cec6] driver_attach+0x19/0x1b
[ 269.784946][8133cb65] bus_add_driver+0xdf/0x203
[ 269.784948][8133dad3] driver_register+0x8e/0x114
[ 269.784952][8123f581] __pci_register_driver+0x5d/0x62
[ 269.784953][812e0395] drm_pci_init+0x81/0xe6
[ 269.784957][81af7612] i915_init+0x66/0x68
[ 269.784959][810020b4] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x136
[ 269.784962][8147ceaa] kernel_init+0x141/0x296
[ 269.784964][8149c7bc] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 269.784966]
[ 269.784966] - #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
[ 269.784967][81088955] __lock_acquire+0xa7e/0xddd
[ 269.784969][810890e4] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
[ 269.784971][81495092] down_read+0x34/0x43
[
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
It seems that I'm running into the same locking issue. My setup is:
- i.MX28 (ARM)
- v3.8-rc1
- mxs_defconfig
Shawn
[ 602.229899] ==
[ 602.229905] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 602.229926] 3.8.0-rc1-3-gde4ae7f #767 Not tainted
[ 602.229933] ---
[ 602.229951] kworker/0:1/21 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 602.230037] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: []
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
[ 602.230047]
[ 602.230047] but task is already holding lock:
[ 602.230090] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
console_callback+0xc/0x12c
[ 602.230098]
[ 602.230098] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 602.230098]
[ 602.230104]
[ 602.230104] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 602.230126]
[ 602.230126] -> #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
[ 602.230174][] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124
[ 602.230205][] console_lock+0x58/0x6c
[ 602.230250][] register_con_driver+0x38/0x138
[ 602.230284][] take_over_console+0x18/0x44
[ 602.230314][] fbcon_takeover+0x64/0xc8
[ 602.230352][] notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x80
[ 602.230386][] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x48/0x60
[ 602.230416][] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20
[ 602.230459][] register_framebuffer+0x170/0x250
[ 602.230492][] mxsfb_probe+0x574/0x738
[ 602.230528][] platform_drv_probe+0x14/0x18
[ 602.230556][] driver_probe_device+0x78/0x20c
[ 602.230583][] __driver_attach+0x94/0x98
[ 602.230610][] bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x7c
[ 602.230636][] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
[ 602.230662][] driver_register+0x78/0x144
[ 602.230690][] do_one_initcall+0x30/0x16c
[ 602.230721][] kernel_init+0xf4/0x290
[ 602.230756][] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
[ 602.230781]
[ 602.230781] -> #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
[ 602.230825][] __lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0
[ 602.230854][] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124
[ 602.230895][] down_read+0x3c/0x4c
[ 602.230933][] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
[ 602.230962][] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20
[ 602.230997][] fb_blank+0x34/0x98
[ 602.231024][] fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c
[ 602.231065][] do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268
[ 602.231093][] console_callback+0x68/0x12c
[ 602.231121][] process_one_work+0x1a8/0x560
[ 602.231145][] worker_thread+0x160/0x480
[ 602.231180][] kthread+0xa4/0xb0
[ 602.231210][] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
[ 602.231218]
[ 602.231218] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 602.231218]
[ 602.231225] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 602.231225]
[ 602.231230]CPU0CPU1
[ 602.231235]
[ 602.231249] lock(console_lock);
[ 602.231263]lock((fb_notifier_list).rwsem);
[ 602.231275]lock(console_lock);
[ 602.231287] lock((fb_notifier_list).rwsem);
[ 602.231292]
[ 602.231292] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 602.231292]
[ 602.231305] 3 locks held by kworker/0:1/21:
[ 602.231345] #0: (events){.+.+.+}, at: []
process_one_work+0x128/0x560
[ 602.231388] #1: (console_work){+.+...}, at: []
process_one_work+0x128/0x560
[ 602.231430] #2: (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
console_callback+0xc/0x12c
[ 602.231437]
[ 602.231437] stack backtrace:
[ 602.231491] [] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from []
(print_circular_bug+0x254/0x2a0)
[ 602.231547] [] (print_circular_bug+0x254/0x2a0) from []
(__lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0)
[ 602.231596] [] (__lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0) from []
(lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124)
[ 602.231640] [] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124) from []
(down_read+0x3c/0x4c)
[ 602.231694] [] (down_read+0x3c/0x4c) from []
(__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60)
[ 602.231741] [] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60) from
[] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20)
[ 602.231791] [] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20) from
[] (fb_blank+0x34/0x98)
[ 602.231836] [] (fb_blank+0x34/0x98) from []
(fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c)
[ 602.231886] [] (fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c) from []
(do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268)
[ 602.231931] [] (do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268) from []
(console_callback+0x68/0x12c)
[ 602.231970] [] (console_callback+0x68/0x12c) from []
(process_one_work+0x1a8/0x560)
[ 602.232010] [] (process_one_work+0x1a8/0x560) from []
(worker_thread+0x160/0x480)
[ 602.232054] [] (worker_thread+0x160/0x480) from []
(kthread+0xa4/0xb0)
[ 602.232100] [] (kthread+0xa4/0xb0) from []
(ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c)
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 04:28:26PM +0100, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
> Got during suspend to disk:
>
> [ 269.784867] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 269.784869] 3.8.0-rc1 #1 Not tainted
> [ 269.784870]
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
It seems that I'm running into the same locking issue. My setup is:
- i.MX28 (ARM)
- v3.8-rc1
- mxs_defconfig
Shawn
[ 602.229899] ==
[ 602.229905] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 602.229926] 3.8.0-rc1-3-gde4ae7f #767 Not tainted
[ 602.229933] ---
[ 602.229951] kworker/0:1/21 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 602.230037] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [c0041f34]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
[ 602.230047]
[ 602.230047] but task is already holding lock:
[ 602.230090] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [c02a1d60]
console_callback+0xc/0x12c
[ 602.230098]
[ 602.230098] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 602.230098]
[ 602.230104]
[ 602.230104] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 602.230126]
[ 602.230126] - #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
[ 602.230174][c005cb20] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124
[ 602.230205][c001dc78] console_lock+0x58/0x6c
[ 602.230250][c029ea60] register_con_driver+0x38/0x138
[ 602.230284][c02a0018] take_over_console+0x18/0x44
[ 602.230314][c027bc80] fbcon_takeover+0x64/0xc8
[ 602.230352][c0041c94] notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x80
[ 602.230386][c0041f50] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x48/0x60
[ 602.230416][c0041f80] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20
[ 602.230459][c0275efc] register_framebuffer+0x170/0x250
[ 602.230492][c02837f4] mxsfb_probe+0x574/0x738
[ 602.230528][c02b276c] platform_drv_probe+0x14/0x18
[ 602.230556][c02b14cc] driver_probe_device+0x78/0x20c
[ 602.230583][c02b16f4] __driver_attach+0x94/0x98
[ 602.230610][c02afdb4] bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x7c
[ 602.230636][c02b0d14] bus_add_driver+0x180/0x250
[ 602.230662][c02b1bb8] driver_register+0x78/0x144
[ 602.230690][c00087c8] do_one_initcall+0x30/0x16c
[ 602.230721][c0428fcc] kernel_init+0xf4/0x290
[ 602.230756][c000e9c8] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
[ 602.230781]
[ 602.230781] - #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
[ 602.230825][c005bfa0] __lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0
[ 602.230854][c005cb20] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124
[ 602.230895][c0430148] down_read+0x3c/0x4c
[ 602.230933][c0041f34] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60
[ 602.230962][c0041f80] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20
[ 602.230997][c0274a78] fb_blank+0x34/0x98
[ 602.231024][c027c7b8] fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c
[ 602.231065][c029f194] do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268
[ 602.231093][c02a1dbc] console_callback+0x68/0x12c
[ 602.231121][c00368c0] process_one_work+0x1a8/0x560
[ 602.231145][c0036fd8] worker_thread+0x160/0x480
[ 602.231180][c003c040] kthread+0xa4/0xb0
[ 602.231210][c000e9c8] ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
[ 602.231218]
[ 602.231218] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 602.231218]
[ 602.231225] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 602.231225]
[ 602.231230]CPU0CPU1
[ 602.231235]
[ 602.231249] lock(console_lock);
[ 602.231263]lock((fb_notifier_list).rwsem);
[ 602.231275]lock(console_lock);
[ 602.231287] lock((fb_notifier_list).rwsem);
[ 602.231292]
[ 602.231292] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 602.231292]
[ 602.231305] 3 locks held by kworker/0:1/21:
[ 602.231345] #0: (events){.+.+.+}, at: [c0036840]
process_one_work+0x128/0x560
[ 602.231388] #1: (console_work){+.+...}, at: [c0036840]
process_one_work+0x128/0x560
[ 602.231430] #2: (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [c02a1d60]
console_callback+0xc/0x12c
[ 602.231437]
[ 602.231437] stack backtrace:
[ 602.231491] [c0013e58] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [c042b0e4]
(print_circular_bug+0x254/0x2a0)
[ 602.231547] [c042b0e4] (print_circular_bug+0x254/0x2a0) from [c005bfa0]
(__lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0)
[ 602.231596] [c005bfa0] (__lock_acquire+0x1354/0x19b0) from [c005cb20]
(lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124)
[ 602.231640] [c005cb20] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x124) from [c0430148]
(down_read+0x3c/0x4c)
[ 602.231694] [c0430148] (down_read+0x3c/0x4c) from [c0041f34]
(__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60)
[ 602.231741] [c0041f34] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2c/0x60) from
[c0041f80] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20)
[ 602.231791] [c0041f80] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x18/0x20) from
[c0274a78] (fb_blank+0x34/0x98)
[ 602.231836] [c0274a78] (fb_blank+0x34/0x98) from [c027c7b8]
(fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c)
[ 602.231886] [c027c7b8] (fbcon_blank+0x1dc/0x27c) from [c029f194]
(do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268)
[ 602.231931] [c029f194] (do_blank_screen+0x1b0/0x268) from [c02a1dbc]
(console_callback+0x68/0x12c)
[ 602.231970] [c02a1dbc] (console_callback+0x68/0x12c) from [c00368c0]
(process_one_work+0x1a8/0x560)
[
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 at 16:28, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
> Got during suspend to disk:
I got a similar message on a powerpc G4 system, right after bootup (no
suspend involved):
http://nerdbynature.de/bits/3.8.0-rc1/
[ 97.803049] ==
[ 97.803051] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 97.803059] 3.8.0-rc1-dirty #2 Not tainted
[ 97.803060] ---
[ 97.803066] kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 97.803097] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: []
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x88
[ 97.803099]
[ 97.803099] but task is already holding lock:
[ 97.803110] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
console_callback+0x20/0x194
[ 97.803112]
[ 97.803112] which lock already depends on the new lock.
...and on it goes. Please see the URL above for the whole dmesg and
.config.
@Li Zhong: I have applied your fix for the "MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too
low" warning[0] to 3.8-rc1 (hence the -dirty flag), but in the
backtrace "ret_from_kernel_thread" shows up again. FWIW, your
patch helped to make the "MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low"
warning go away in 3.7.0-rc7 and it did not re-appear ever
since.
Thanks,
Christian.
[0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1211.3/01917.html
> [ 269.784867] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 269.784869] 3.8.0-rc1 #1 Not tainted
> [ 269.784870] ---
> [ 269.784871] kworker/u:3/56 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 269.784878] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: []
> __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
> [ 269.784879]
> [ 269.784879] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 269.784884] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: []
> i915_drm_freeze+0x9e/0xbb
> [ 269.784884]
> [ 269.784884] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 269.784884]
> [ 269.784885]
> [ 269.784885] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 269.784887]
> [ 269.784887] -> #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
> [ 269.784890][] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
> [ 269.784893][] console_lock+0x59/0x5b
> [ 269.784897][] register_con_driver+0x36/0x128
> [ 269.784899][] take_over_console+0x1e/0x45
> [ 269.784903][] fbcon_takeover+0x56/0x98
> [ 269.784906][] fbcon_event_notify+0x2c1/0x5ea
> [ 269.784909][] notifier_call_chain+0x67/0x92
> [ 269.784911][]
> __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5f/0x80
> [ 269.784912][]
> blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> [ 269.784915][] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
> [ 269.784917][] register_framebuffer+0x20a/0x26e
> [ 269.784920][]
> drm_fb_helper_single_fb_probe+0x1ce/0x297
> [ 269.784922][]
> drm_fb_helper_initial_config+0x1d7/0x1ef
> [ 269.784924][] intel_fbdev_init+0x6f/0x82
> [ 269.784927][] i915_driver_load+0xa9e/0xc78
> [ 269.784929][] drm_get_pci_dev+0x165/0x26d
> [ 269.784931][] i915_pci_probe+0x60/0x69
> [ 269.784933][] local_pci_probe+0x39/0x61
> [ 269.784935][] pci_device_probe+0xba/0xe0
> [ 269.784938][] driver_probe_device+0x99/0x1c4
> [ 269.784940][] __driver_attach+0x4e/0x6f
> [ 269.784942][] bus_for_each_dev+0x52/0x84
> [ 269.784944][] driver_attach+0x19/0x1b
> [ 269.784946][] bus_add_driver+0xdf/0x203
> [ 269.784948][] driver_register+0x8e/0x114
> [ 269.784952][] __pci_register_driver+0x5d/0x62
> [ 269.784953][] drm_pci_init+0x81/0xe6
> [ 269.784957][] i915_init+0x66/0x68
> [ 269.784959][] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x136
> [ 269.784962][] kernel_init+0x141/0x296
> [ 269.784964][] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> [ 269.784966]
> [ 269.784966] -> #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
> [ 269.784967][] __lock_acquire+0xa7e/0xddd
> [ 269.784969][] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
> [ 269.784971][] down_read+0x34/0x43
> [ 269.784973][]
> __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
> [ 269.784975][]
> blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> [ 269.784977][] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
> [ 269.784979][] fb_set_suspend+0x22/0x4d
> [ 269.784981][] intel_fbdev_set_suspend+0x20/0x22
> [ 269.784983][] i915_drm_freeze+0xab/0xbb
> [ 269.784985][] i915_pm_freeze+0x3d/0x41
> [ 269.784987][] pci_pm_freeze+0x65/0x8d
> [ 269.784990][] dpm_run_callback.isra.3+0x27/0x56
> [ 269.784993][] __device_suspend+0x136/0x1b1
> [ 269.784995][] async_suspend+0x1a/0x58
> [ 269.784997][] async_run_entry_fn+0xa4/0x17c
> [ 269.785000][] process_one_work+0x1cf/0x38e
> [ 269.785002][] worker_thread+0x12e/0x1cc
> [ 269.785004][] kthread+0xac/0xb4
> [ 269.785006][]
Re: [REGRESSION][3.8.-rc1][ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 at 16:28, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
Got during suspend to disk:
I got a similar message on a powerpc G4 system, right after bootup (no
suspend involved):
http://nerdbynature.de/bits/3.8.0-rc1/
[ 97.803049] ==
[ 97.803051] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 97.803059] 3.8.0-rc1-dirty #2 Not tainted
[ 97.803060] ---
[ 97.803066] kworker/0:1/235 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 97.803097] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [c00606a0]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x88
[ 97.803099]
[ 97.803099] but task is already holding lock:
[ 97.803110] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [c03b9fd0]
console_callback+0x20/0x194
[ 97.803112]
[ 97.803112] which lock already depends on the new lock.
...and on it goes. Please see the URL above for the whole dmesg and
.config.
@Li Zhong: I have applied your fix for the MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too
low warning[0] to 3.8-rc1 (hence the -dirty flag), but in the
backtrace ret_from_kernel_thread shows up again. FWIW, your
patch helped to make the MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low
warning go away in 3.7.0-rc7 and it did not re-appear ever
since.
Thanks,
Christian.
[0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1211.3/01917.html
[ 269.784867] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 269.784869] 3.8.0-rc1 #1 Not tainted
[ 269.784870] ---
[ 269.784871] kworker/u:3/56 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 269.784878] ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [81062a1d]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
[ 269.784879]
[ 269.784879] but task is already holding lock:
[ 269.784884] (console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [812ee4ce]
i915_drm_freeze+0x9e/0xbb
[ 269.784884]
[ 269.784884] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 269.784884]
[ 269.784885]
[ 269.784885] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 269.784887]
[ 269.784887] - #1 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
[ 269.784890][810890e4] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
[ 269.784893][810405a1] console_lock+0x59/0x5b
[ 269.784897][812ba125] register_con_driver+0x36/0x128
[ 269.784899][812bb27e] take_over_console+0x1e/0x45
[ 269.784903][81257a04] fbcon_takeover+0x56/0x98
[ 269.784906][8125b857] fbcon_event_notify+0x2c1/0x5ea
[ 269.784909][8149a211] notifier_call_chain+0x67/0x92
[ 269.784911][81062a33]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5f/0x80
[ 269.784912][81062a63]
blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
[ 269.784915][8124e85e] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
[ 269.784917][812505d7] register_framebuffer+0x20a/0x26e
[ 269.784920][812d3ca0]
drm_fb_helper_single_fb_probe+0x1ce/0x297
[ 269.784922][812d3f40]
drm_fb_helper_initial_config+0x1d7/0x1ef
[ 269.784924][8132cee2] intel_fbdev_init+0x6f/0x82
[ 269.784927][812f22f6] i915_driver_load+0xa9e/0xc78
[ 269.784929][812e020c] drm_get_pci_dev+0x165/0x26d
[ 269.784931][812ee8da] i915_pci_probe+0x60/0x69
[ 269.784933][8123fe8e] local_pci_probe+0x39/0x61
[ 269.784935][812400f5] pci_device_probe+0xba/0xe0
[ 269.784938][8133d3b6] driver_probe_device+0x99/0x1c4
[ 269.784940][8133d52f] __driver_attach+0x4e/0x6f
[ 269.784942][8133bae1] bus_for_each_dev+0x52/0x84
[ 269.784944][8133cec6] driver_attach+0x19/0x1b
[ 269.784946][8133cb65] bus_add_driver+0xdf/0x203
[ 269.784948][8133dad3] driver_register+0x8e/0x114
[ 269.784952][8123f581] __pci_register_driver+0x5d/0x62
[ 269.784953][812e0395] drm_pci_init+0x81/0xe6
[ 269.784957][81af7612] i915_init+0x66/0x68
[ 269.784959][810020b4] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x136
[ 269.784962][8147ceaa] kernel_init+0x141/0x296
[ 269.784964][8149c7bc] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 269.784966]
[ 269.784966] - #0 ((fb_notifier_list).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
[ 269.784967][81088955] __lock_acquire+0xa7e/0xddd
[ 269.784969][810890e4] lock_acquire+0x95/0x105
[ 269.784971][81495092] down_read+0x34/0x43
[ 269.784973][81062a1d]
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x49/0x80
[ 269.784975][81062a63]
blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
[ 269.784977][8124e85e] fb_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
[ 269.784979][8124ec47] fb_set_suspend+0x22/0x4d
[ 269.784981]
