soft lockup detected in acpi_processor_idle() -- false positive?

DISCUSSION Dominik Brodowski 3 participants 4 messages Jan 12, 2006 – Jan 13, 2006 ACPI

Share & tools

Dominik Brodowski

author

2006-01-12 18:43 UTC #0 lore raw

Latest git, fresh after resuming from suspend-to-disk (in-kernel variant):

[4294914.586000] Restarting tasks... done
[4294922.657000] BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
[4294922.657000] 
[4294922.657000] Pid: 0, comm:              swapper
[4294922.657000] EIP: 0060:[<f003084c>] CPU: 0
[4294922.657000] EIP is at acpi_processor_idle+0x1f3/0x2d5 [processor]
[4294922.657000]  EFLAGS: 00000282    Not tainted  (2.6.15)
[4294922.657000] EAX: fffff000 EBX: 005543a8 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
[4294922.657000] ESI: edcc3064 EDI: edcc2f60 EBP: c041cfdc DS: 007b ES: 007b
[4294922.657000] CR0: 8005003b CR2: 080c3000 CR3: 2d530000 CR4: 000006d0

As acpi_processor_idle doesn't take any locks AFAIK, it seems to me to be a false positive -- or do I miss something obvious?

Dominik
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Rafael J. Wysocki

2006-01-12 19:52 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 14 lines · Dominik Brodowski

Latest git, fresh after resuming from suspend-to-disk (in-kernel variant):

[4294914.586000] Restarting tasks... done
[4294922.657000] BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
[4294922.657000] 
[4294922.657000] Pid: 0, comm:              swapper
[4294922.657000] EIP: 0060:[<f003084c>] CPU: 0
[4294922.657000] EIP is at acpi_processor_idle+0x1f3/0x2d5 [processor]
[4294922.657000]  EFLAGS: 00000282    Not tainted  (2.6.15)
[4294922.657000] EAX: fffff000 EBX: 005543a8 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
[4294922.657000] ESI: edcc3064 EDI: edcc2f60 EBP: c041cfdc DS: 007b ES: 007b
[4294922.657000] CR0: 8005003b CR2: 080c3000 CR3: 2d530000 CR4: 000006d0

Quoted 2 lines

As acpi_processor_idle doesn't take any locks AFAIK, it seems to me to be a false positive -- or do I miss something obvious?

I think it's a false-positive.

This "soft lockup" message has been appearing for me for quite some time now (actually since the softlockup patch made it into -mm ;-)), in a non-reproducible manner, but I haven't been able to nail it down.

Still, I thought it was x86-64-specific, but your machine is an i386, so there's more to it, apparently. Probably there's missing touch_softlockup_watchdog() somewhere, or the timer .suspend()/.resume() routines need some additional review.

Greetings,
Rafael

Shaohua Li

2006-01-13 00:55 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 20 lines · Rafael J. Wysocki

Quoted 14 lines · Dominik Brodowski
Latest git, fresh after resuming from suspend-to-disk (in-kernel variant):
[4294914.586000] Restarting tasks... done
[4294922.657000] BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
[4294922.657000] 
[4294922.657000] Pid: 0, comm:              swapper
[4294922.657000] EIP: 0060:[<f003084c>] CPU: 0
[4294922.657000] EIP is at acpi_processor_idle+0x1f3/0x2d5 [processor]
[4294922.657000]  EFLAGS: 00000282    Not tainted  (2.6.15)
[4294922.657000] EAX: fffff000 EBX: 005543a8 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
[4294922.657000] ESI: edcc3064 EDI: edcc2f60 EBP: c041cfdc DS: 007b ES: 007b
[4294922.657000] CR0: 8005003b CR2: 080c3000 CR3: 2d530000 CR4: 000006d0
Quoted 2 lines
As acpi_processor_idle doesn't take any locks AFAIK, it seems to me to be a false positive -- or do I miss something obvious?
I think it's a false-positive.

Quoted 8 lines

This "soft lockup" message has been appearing for me for quite some time now (actually since the softlockup patch made it into -mm ;-)), in a non-reproducible manner, but I haven't been able to nail it down.
Still, I thought it was x86-64-specific, but your machine is an i386, so there's more to it, apparently. Probably there's missing touch_softlockup_watchdog() somewhere, or the timer .suspend()/.resume() routines need some additional review.

I got some similar reports for S3:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5825
I guess x86-64 lacks .suspend/.resume for timer. Last time I looked at such issue in ia32, and I fixed it, but I didn't fix x86-64.

Thanks,
Shaohua

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Rafael J. Wysocki

2006-01-13 11:15 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 25 lines · Shaohua Li

Quoted 24 lines · Rafael J. Wysocki
Quoted 14 lines · Dominik Brodowski
Latest git, fresh after resuming from suspend-to-disk (in-kernel variant):
[4294914.586000] Restarting tasks... done
[4294922.657000] BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
[4294922.657000] 
[4294922.657000] Pid: 0, comm:              swapper
[4294922.657000] EIP: 0060:[<f003084c>] CPU: 0
[4294922.657000] EIP is at acpi_processor_idle+0x1f3/0x2d5 [processor]
[4294922.657000]  EFLAGS: 00000282    Not tainted  (2.6.15)
[4294922.657000] EAX: fffff000 EBX: 005543a8 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
[4294922.657000] ESI: edcc3064 EDI: edcc2f60 EBP: c041cfdc DS: 007b ES: 007b
[4294922.657000] CR0: 8005003b CR2: 080c3000 CR3: 2d530000 CR4: 000006d0
Quoted 2 lines
As acpi_processor_idle doesn't take any locks AFAIK, it seems to me to be a false positive -- or do I miss something obvious?
I think it's a false-positive.
This "soft lockup" message has been appearing for me for quite some time now (actually since the softlockup patch made it into -mm ;-)), in a non-reproducible manner, but I haven't been able to nail it down.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 4 lines
Still, I thought it was x86-64-specific, but your machine is an i386, so there's more to it, apparently. Probably there's missing touch_softlockup_watchdog() somewhere, or the timer .suspend()/.resume() routines need some additional review.
I got some similar reports for S3:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5825
I guess x86-64 lacks .suspend/.resume for timer.

No, it doesn't. They are similar to i386 ones.

Greetings,
Rafael