[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANA+-vAXzHTSZa4Oq4osOOWJkme43cP8Cv2JySU--QCv-A0U_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:04:37 -0700
From: Tri Vo <trong@...roid.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: "PM / wakeup: Show wakeup sources stats in sysfs" causes boot warnings
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 3:35 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Qian Cai (2019-08-13 14:32:56)
> > The linux-next commit "PM / wakeup: Show wakeup sources stats in sysfs" [1]
> > introduced some baddies during boot on several x86 servers. Reverted the commit
> > fixed the issue.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190807014846.143949-4-trong@android.com/
> >
> > [ 39.195053][ T1] serio: i8042 KBD port at 0x60,0x64 irq 1
> > [ 39.197347][ T1] kobject_add_internal failed for wakeup (error: -2 parent:
> > serio0)
> > [ 39.199845][ T1] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> > [ 39.201582][ T1] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
> > [ 39.203477][ T1] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > [ 39.205399][ T1] CPU: 12 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.3.0-rc4-
> > next-20190813 #3
> > [ 39.207938][ T1] Hardware name: HP ProLiant XL420 Gen9/ProLiant XL420
> > Gen9, BIOS U19 12/27/2015
> > [ 39.210606][ T1] Call Trace:
> > [ 39.210606][ T1] dump_stack+0x62/0x9a
> > [ 39.210606][ T1] register_lock_class+0x95a/0x960
> > [ 39.210606][ T1] ? __platform_driver_probe+0xcd/0x230
> > [ 39.210606][ T1] ? __platform_create_bundle+0xc0/0xe0
> > [ 39.210606][ T1] ? i8042_init+0x4ec/0x578
> > [ 39.210606][ T1] ? do_one_initcall+0xfe/0x45a
> > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? kernel_init_freeable+0x614/0x6a7
> > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? kernel_init+0x11/0x138
> > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
> > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? is_dynamic_key+0xf0/0xf0
> > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? rwlock_bug.part.0+0x60/0x60
> > [ 39.219571][ T1] ? __debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x8e/0x250
> > [ 39.219571][ T1] __lock_acquire.isra.13+0x5f/0x830
> > [ 39.229491][ T1] ? __debug_check_no_obj_freed+0x152/0x250
> > [ 39.229491][ T1] lock_acquire+0x107/0x220
> > [ 39.229491][ T1] ? __pm_relax.part.2+0x21/0xa0
> > [ 39.229491][ T1] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x35/0x50
> > [ 39.229491][ T1] ? __pm_relax.part.2+0x21/0xa0
> > [ 39.229491][ T1] __pm_relax.part.2+0x21/0xa0
> > [ 39.239588][ T1] wakeup_source_destroy.part.3+0x18/0x190
> > [ 39.239588][ T1] wakeup_source_register+0x43/0x50
>
> We shouldn't call wakeup_source_destroy() from the error path in
> wakeup_source_register() because that calls __pm_relax() and that takes
> a lock that isn't initialized until wakeup_source_add() is called. Can
> you try this patch?
Right, that makes sense. Thanks for sending a fix, Stephen!
What's the preferred procedure for merging this fix? Should we apply
this commit on top of pm tree? Or should I resend a new version of the
offending patch? Sorry, I'm still new to this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists