Fwd: oprofile lockdep warning on rc1

[Dave Jones]

This happened on a 2.6.21rc1 kernel.

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
> --- Begin Message ---
> On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 14:52 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Well it's at least partly Xorg's fault, but it would be helpful to
> > know
> > what the slow path is there; so if you do file a bug against Xorg,
> > please accompany it with oprofile goodness.
>
> Well, I get this:
>
> CPU: Core Solo / Duo, speed 1662.57 MHz (estimated)
> Counted CPU_CLK_UNHALTED events (Unhalted clock cycles) with a unit mask
> of 0x00 (Unhalted core cycles) count 860000
> CPU_CLK_UNHALT...|
>   samples|      %|
> ------------------
>     12704 82.6330 /usr/bin/Xorg
>         CPU_CLK_UNHALT...|
>           samples|      %|
>         ------------------
>             12066 94.9780 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libfb.so
>               286  2.2513 /usr/bin/Xorg
>               216  1.7003 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nv_drv.so
>                75  0.5904 /lib/libc-2.5.90.so
>                48  0.3778 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libxaa.so
>                 6  0.0472 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libextmod.so
>                 3  0.0236 /lib/librt-2.5.90.so
>                 1  0.0079 /usr/lib/libXfont.so.1.4.1
>                 1  0.0079 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/input/mouse_drv.so
>                 1  0.0079 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/input/synaptics_drv.so
>                 1  0.0079 /usr/lib/xorg/modules/libramdac.so
>
> But also I get this (!!!):
>
> oprofile: using NMI interrupt.
>
> =================================
> [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> 2.6.20-1.2949.fc7 #1
> ---------------------------------
> inconsistent {hardirq-on-W} -> {in-hardirq-W} usage.
> swapper/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
>  (oprofilefs_lock){+-..}, at: [<f8c6db5e>] nmi_cpu_setup+0x15/0x4f
> [oprofile]
> {hardirq-on-W} state was registered at:
>   [<c0442440>] __lock_acquire+0x448/0xba4
>   [<c0442f8e>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f
>   [<c0614949>] _spin_lock+0x2b/0x38
>   [<f8c6d33c>] oprofilefs_ulong_from_user+0x4e/0x74 [oprofile]
>   [<f8c6d38c>] ulong_write_file+0x2a/0x38 [oprofile]
>   [<c047e20b>] vfs_write+0xaf/0x163
>   [<c047e859>] sys_write+0x3d/0x61
>   [<c0405134>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
>   [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> irq event stamp: 23424902
> hardirqs last  enabled at (23424901): [<c0614d4d>]
> _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x36/0x3c
> hardirqs last disabled at (23424902): [<c0405bb5>]
> call_function_interrupt+0x29/0x38
> softirqs last  enabled at (23424892): [<c042c0d8>] __do_softirq
> +0xdc/0xe2
> softirqs last disabled at (23424885): [<c04074dc>] do_softirq+0x61/0xd0
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> no locks held by swapper/0.
>
> stack backtrace:
>  [<c04062a5>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
>  [<c0406869>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
>  [<c04068ed>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
>  [<c0440f67>] print_usage_bug+0x141/0x14b
>  [<c0441620>] mark_lock+0xa2/0x419
>  [<c04423b1>] __lock_acquire+0x3b9/0xba4
>  [<c0442f8e>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x6f
>  [<c0614949>] _spin_lock+0x2b/0x38
>  [<f8c6db5e>] nmi_cpu_setup+0x15/0x4f [oprofile]
>  [<c0417e6a>] smp_call_function_interrupt+0x3f/0x5b
>  [<c0405bbf>] call_function_interrupt+0x33/0x38
>  [<c0614896>] _spin_unlock+0x16/0x20
>  [<c043ded6>] clockevents_notify+0x3e/0x42
>  [<c0532f67>] acpi_state_timer_broadcast+0x2e/0x31
>  [<c05338e8>] acpi_processor_idle+0x285/0x419
>  [<c040348e>] cpu_idle+0xb7/0xdd
>  [<c0418eef>] start_secondary+0x330/0x338
>  [<00000000>] 0x0
>  =======================
>
> Why do the simplest bugs always turn into the most complicated ones ;-)
>
> Richard.
>
>
> -- 
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
> --- End Message ---