From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750806AbZHHOHn (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Aug 2009 10:07:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750715AbZHHOHm (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Aug 2009 10:07:42 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:65127 "EHLO mail-bw0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750706AbZHHOHl convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Aug 2009 10:07:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=AoTNI40wSt5rOtKyCNUTu5CpfTTKDsLPcYZK+dRSUyWg1taEmaD5DuNovkyTwcAroD djRTBl+whZkabQRJtEsXr4UxZzCCVbm6b+2FsqhcLnKNo4cziS3LeXXtWzr5Wna1BjBb jgbm6G+lbuBOCNcvYuBcjSOtoIrvd1I5dmtnQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20090808120026.GA13183@mit.edu> References: <20090807094608.4b0efea1@torg> <20090808120026.GA13183@mit.edu> Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 22:07:40 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RT] Lockdep warning on boot with 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1 From: Dave Young To: Theodore Tso , Clark Williams , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , RT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 09:46:08AM -0500, Clark Williams wrote: >> Peter, >> >> I'm getting this warning from lockdep when booting on my T60. >> >> The two addresses reported (0xffffffff812664a2 and 0xffffffff812664ae) >> actually bracket one call to mutex_lock() in driver_attach() so I'm not >> sure what the complaint is. > > I'm getting a different lockdep warning when booting on my T400 using > 2.6.31-rc5; not sure if it's related or not.... > > In any case, it's screwing up the ability for lockdep to find any > other problems. > > [    0.297775] INFO: trying to register non-static key. > [    0.297775] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation. > [    0.297775] turning off the locking correctness validator. > [    0.297775] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.31-rc5-00256-gf124845 #4 > [    0.297775] Call Trace: > [    0.297775]  [] ? printk+0x14/0x1d > [    0.297775]  [] register_lock_class+0x5a/0x2a1 > [    0.297775]  [] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4 > [    0.297775]  [] __lock_acquire+0x9c/0xb1e > [    0.297775]  [] ? mod_zone_page_state+0x9f/0xaf > [    0.297775]  [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x103/0x124 > [    0.297775]  [] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4 > [    0.297775]  [] ? mark_held_locks+0x43/0x5b > [    0.297775]  [] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0xaf/0x127 > [    0.297775]  [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x103/0x124 > [    0.297775]  [] lock_acquire+0x94/0xb7 > [    0.297775]  [] ? alloc_netdev_mq+0x105/0x1cc > [    0.297775]  [] _spin_lock_bh+0x28/0x58 > [    0.297775]  [] ? alloc_netdev_mq+0x105/0x1cc > [    0.297775]  [] alloc_netdev_mq+0x105/0x1cc > [    0.297775]  [] ? loopback_setup+0x0/0x79 > [    0.297775]  [] loopback_net_init+0x25/0x68 > [    0.297782]  [] register_pernet_operations+0x2f/0xa1 > [    0.297832]  [] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x33/0x3b > [    0.297891]  [] register_pernet_device+0x24/0x4c > [    0.297951]  [] net_dev_init+0x101/0x150 > [    0.298010]  [] ? net_dev_init+0x0/0x150 > [    0.298069]  [] do_one_initcall+0x6a/0x177 > [    0.298127]  [] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4 > [    0.298185]  [] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4 > [    0.298244]  [] ? get_page_from_freelist+0x28f/0x3be > [    0.298304]  [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x103/0x124 > [    0.298364]  [] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd > [    0.298423]  [] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4 > [    0.298482]  [] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4 > [    0.298540]  [] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd > [    0.298600]  [] ? ida_get_new_above+0x157/0x171 > [    0.298660]  [] ? proc_register+0x14b/0x15c > [    0.298719]  [] ? sched_clock+0x8/0xb > [    0.298777]  [] ? lock_release_holdtime+0x30/0x131 > [    0.298837]  [] ? proc_register+0x14b/0x15c > [    0.298896]  [] ? _spin_unlock+0x22/0x25 > [    0.298954]  [] ? proc_register+0x14b/0x15c > [    0.299013]  [] ? create_proc_entry+0x80/0x96 > [    0.299073]  [] ? register_irq_proc+0x91/0xad > [    0.299132]  [] ? init_irq_proc+0x58/0x65 > [    0.299191]  [] kernel_init+0x131/0x182 > [    0.299249]  [] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x182 > It's a different problem, for this issue please see: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/5/49 http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/5/51 -- Regards dave