Re: [RT] Lockdep warning on boot with 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1

[Dave Young]

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Theodore Tso<tytso@xxxxxxx> 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.
>
> [ Â Â0.297775] INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> [ Â Â0.297775] the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
> [ Â Â0.297775] turning off the locking correctness validator.
> [ Â Â0.297775] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.31-rc5-00256-gf124845 #4
> [ Â Â0.297775] Call Trace:
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c0511a2f>] ? printk+0x14/0x1d
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c016de1f>] register_lock_class+0x5a/0x2a1
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c016e932>] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c016f673>] __lock_acquire+0x9c/0xb1e
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c01be910>] ? mod_zone_page_state+0x9f/0xaf
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c016ed98>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x103/0x124
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c016e932>] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c016eb3b>] ? mark_held_locks+0x43/0x5b
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c01d490f>] ? kmem_cache_alloc+0xaf/0x127
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c016ed98>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x103/0x124
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c0170189>] lock_acquire+0x94/0xb7
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c045d6bd>] ? alloc_netdev_mq+0x105/0x1cc
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c0513f8d>] _spin_lock_bh+0x28/0x58
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c045d6bd>] ? alloc_netdev_mq+0x105/0x1cc
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c045d6bd>] alloc_netdev_mq+0x105/0x1cc
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c03f7bbf>] ? loopback_setup+0x0/0x79
> [ Â Â0.297775] Â[<c03f7c6f>] loopback_net_init+0x25/0x68
> [ Â Â0.297782] Â[<c0457317>] register_pernet_operations+0x2f/0xa1
> [ Â Â0.297832] Â[<c0512fcd>] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x33/0x3b
> [ Â Â0.297891] Â[<c0457435>] register_pernet_device+0x24/0x4c
> [ Â Â0.297951] Â[<c0796a09>] net_dev_init+0x101/0x150
> [ Â Â0.298010] Â[<c0796908>] ? net_dev_init+0x0/0x150
> [ Â Â0.298069] Â[<c010115c>] do_one_initcall+0x6a/0x177
> [ Â Â0.298127] Â[<c016e932>] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4
> [ Â Â0.298185] Â[<c016e932>] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4
> [ Â Â0.298244] Â[<c01b371a>] ? get_page_from_freelist+0x28f/0x3be
> [ Â Â0.298304] Â[<c016ed98>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x103/0x124
> [ Â Â0.298364] Â[<c016edc4>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
> [ Â Â0.298423] Â[<c016e932>] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4
> [ Â Â0.298482] Â[<c016e932>] ? mark_lock+0x1e/0x1e4
> [ Â Â0.298540] Â[<c016edc4>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
> [ Â Â0.298600] Â[<c03104ad>] ? ida_get_new_above+0x157/0x171
> [ Â Â0.298660] Â[<c0213468>] ? proc_register+0x14b/0x15c
> [ Â Â0.298719] Â[<c011e5f6>] ? sched_clock+0x8/0xb
> [ Â Â0.298777] Â[<c016d9b1>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0x30/0x131
> [ Â Â0.298837] Â[<c0213468>] ? proc_register+0x14b/0x15c
> [ Â Â0.298896] Â[<c0513dfb>] ? _spin_unlock+0x22/0x25
> [ Â Â0.298954] Â[<c0213468>] ? proc_register+0x14b/0x15c
> [ Â Â0.299013] Â[<c021359b>] ? create_proc_entry+0x80/0x96
> [ Â Â0.299073] Â[<c0191064>] ? register_irq_proc+0x91/0xad
> [ Â Â0.299132] Â[<c01910d8>] ? init_irq_proc+0x58/0x65
> [ Â Â0.299191] Â[<c0768301>] kernel_init+0x131/0x182
> [ Â Â0.299249] Â[<c07681d0>] ? 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/