[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49C9BBD7.4040705@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:06:31 +0900
From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
To: Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>
CC: jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Trent Piepho <xyzzy@...akeasy.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/13] PCI: Introduce /sys/bus/pci/devices/.../remove
Alex Chiang wrote:
> * Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>:
>> I still have the following kernel error messages in testing with your
>> latest set of patches (Jesse's linux-next). The test case is removing
>> e1000e device or its parent bridge by "echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/
>> .../remove".
>>
>> [ 537.379995] =============================================
>> [ 537.380124] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> [ 537.380128] 2.6.29-rc8-kk #1
>> [ 537.380128] ---------------------------------------------
>> [ 537.380128] events/4/56 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [ 537.380128] (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257fc0>] flush_workqueue+0x0/0xa0
>> [ 537.380128]
>> [ 537.380128] but task is already holding lock:
>> [ 537.380128] (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257648>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
>> [ 537.380128]
>> [ 537.380128] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 537.380128] 3 locks held by events/4/56:
>> [ 537.380128] #0: (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257648>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
>> [ 537.380128] #1: (&ss->work){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257648>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
>> [ 537.380128] #2: (pci_remove_rescan_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803c10d1>] remove_callback+0x21/0x40
>
> I still cannot reproduce this lockdep issue, even using your
> .config with an e1000e device on an x86_64 kernel. :(
>
> I tried removing the endpoint, an intermediate bridge device, and
> the parent bus. I don't know what I'm doing wrong...
>
I don't know either...
The reproducibility is 100% on my environment. The steps are
just boot the system and remove the device.
> Can you please try this patch though, and see if it fixes the
> warning? It applies on top of my other sysfs patch that
> introduces a mutex in sysfs_schedule_callback.
Anyway, I confirmed the kernel error messages were gone with
the patch against sysfs. Note that I used the following patch
I made for testing instead since your patch could not be
applied to Jesse's linux-next.
Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige
fs/sysfs/file.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-next-20090323/fs/sysfs/file.c
===================================================================
--- linux-next-20090323.orig/fs/sysfs/file.c 2009-03-25 12:09:37.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-next-20090323/fs/sysfs/file.c 2009-03-25 13:40:10.000000000 +0900
@@ -677,6 +677,7 @@
kfree(ss);
}
+static struct workqueue_struct *sysfsd_wq;
/**
* sysfs_schedule_callback - helper to schedule a callback for a kobject
* @kobj: object we're acting for.
@@ -704,6 +705,17 @@
if (!try_module_get(owner))
return -ENODEV;
+
+ if (!sysfsd_wq) {
+ sysfsd_wq = create_workqueue("sysfsd");
+ if (!sysfsd_wq) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR
+ "%s: Could not create workqueue\n", __func__);
+ WARN_ON(1);
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ }
+
ss = kmalloc(sizeof(*ss), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!ss) {
module_put(owner);
@@ -715,7 +727,7 @@
ss->data = data;
ss->owner = owner;
INIT_WORK(&ss->work, sysfs_schedule_callback_work);
- schedule_work(&ss->work);
+ queue_work(sysfsd_wq, &ss->work);
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sysfs_schedule_callback);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists