[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1410221634550.22681@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:36:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: lockdep splat in CPU hotplug
On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > I am seeing the lockdep report below when resuming from suspend-to-disk
> > > with current Linus' tree (c2661b80609).
> > >
> > > The reason for CCing Ingo and Peter is that I can't make any sense of one
> > > of the stacktraces lockdep is providing.
> > >
> > > Please have a look at the very first stacktrace in the dump, where lockdep
> > > is trying to explain where cpu_hotplug.lock#2 has been acquired. It seems
> > > to imply that cpuidle_pause() is taking cpu_hotplug.lock, but that's not
> > > the case at all.
> > >
> > > What am I missing?
> >
> > Okay, reverting 442bf3aaf55a ("sched: Let the scheduler see CPU idle
> > states") and followup 83a0a96a5f26 ("sched/fair: Leverage the idle state
> > info when choosing the "idlest" cpu") which depends on it makes the splat
> > go away.
>
> Are you able to reproduce it by offlining the cpu and onlining it again ?
No, that doesn't trigger it (please note that all the relevant stacktraces
from lockdep are going through hibernation).
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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