traceback on 3.2.7-rt13

Thomas,

I just saw the following traceback on my laptop running 3.2.7-rt13:

[32943.463901] Modules linked in: tun vfat fat usb_storage uas tcp_lp

ppdev parport_pc lp parport fuse be2iscsi iscsi_boot_sysfs bnx2i cnic uio cxgb4i cxgb4 lockd cxgb3i libcxgbi cxgb3 mdio iscsi_tcp libiscsi_tcp libiscsi scsi_transport_iscsi rfcomm bnep nf_conntrack_ipv4 ip6t_REJECT nf_defrag_ipv4 nf_conntrack_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv6 xt_state nf_conntrack ip6table_filter ip6_tables snd_hda_codec_hdmi arc4 snd_hda_codec_conexant iwlwifi snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec btusb bluetooth snd_hwdep mac80211 snd_seq uvcvideo snd_seq_device snd_pcm thinkpad_acpi snd_timer videodev snd cfg80211 e1000e i7core_edac media v4l2_compat_ioctl32 xhci_hcd edac_core i2c_i801 snd_page_alloc rfkill iTCO_wdt pcspkr iTCO_vendor_support soundcore microcode uinput sunrpc ipv6 sdhci_pci sdhci mmc_core ehci_hcd nouveau ttm drm_kms_helper drm i2c_algo_bit i2c_core mxm_wmi wmi video [last unloaded: scsi_wait_scan] [32943.463949] Pid: 63, comm:
irq/9-acpi Tainted: G W 3.2.7-rt13+ #40 [32943.463951] Call
Trace: [32943.463958] [<ffffffff815ca1b8>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x62

[32943.463963]  [<ffffffff815dedcd>] __schedule+0x6ed/0x760
[32943.463966]  [<ffffffff815df27e>] schedule+0x2e/0xa0 [32943.463970]
[<ffffffff815e0951>] rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x150/0x1ef [32943.463975]
[<ffffffff81056d01>] ? check_same_owner+0x31/0x80 [32943.463978]
[<ffffffff815e0ee6>] rt_spin_lock+0x26/0x30 [32943.463983]
[<ffffffff81160cdc>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x6c/0x320 [32943.463987]
[<ffffffff8135a307>] ? acpi_hw_write_port+0x43/0x98 [32943.463991]
[<ffffffff81346714>] ? acpi_ec_sync_query+0x102/0x102 [32943.463995]
[<ffffffff81340fcd>] __acpi_os_execute+0x35/0xc6 [32943.463998]
[<ffffffff8134106e>] acpi_os_execute+0x10/0x12 [32943.464001]
[<ffffffff81346e1f>] acpi_ec_gpe_handler+0xad/0xb6 [32943.464004]
[<ffffffff81351baa>] acpi_ev_gpe_dispatch+0xc5/0x13e [32943.464007]
[<ffffffff81351cd8>] acpi_ev_gpe_detect+0xb5/0x10d [32943.464012]
[<ffffffff810d7560>] ? irq_thread_fn+0x50/0x50 [32943.464015]
[<ffffffff813502a6>] acpi_ev_sci_xrupt_handler+0x22/0x2b
[32943.464017]  [<ffffffff81341086>] acpi_irq+0x16/0x31 [32943.464020]
[<ffffffff810d758e>] irq_forced_thread_fn+0x2e/0x70 [32943.464023]
[<ffffffff810d748a>] irq_thread+0x17a/0x200 [32943.464026]
[<ffffffff810d7310>] ? irq_finalize_oneshot+0x20/0x20 [32943.464030]
[<ffffffff81094578>] kthread+0x98/0xa0 [32943.464034]
[<ffffffff815e9d74>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 [32943.464037]
[<ffffffff810944e0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70 [32943.464040]
[<ffffffff815e9d70>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13

I'll dig into it a bit more but my guess is that it was something battery releated (I'd accidentally kicked the power cord out at a coffee shop and noticed that I was down to 28% battery, when I then noticed that I had a traceback).

Quoted 45 lines · Clark Williams

Thomas,

I just saw the following traceback on my laptop running 3.2.7-rt13:

[32943.463901] Modules linked in: tun vfat fat usb_storage uas tcp_lp

ppdev parport_pc lp parport fuse be2iscsi iscsi_boot_sysfs bnx2i cnic uio cxgb4i cxgb4 lockd cxgb3i libcxgbi cxgb3 mdio iscsi_tcp libiscsi_tcp libiscsi scsi_transport_iscsi rfcomm bnep nf_conntrack_ipv4 ip6t_REJECT nf_defrag_ipv4 nf_conntrack_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv6 xt_state nf_conntrack ip6table_filter ip6_tables snd_hda_codec_hdmi arc4 snd_hda_codec_conexant iwlwifi snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec btusb bluetooth snd_hwdep mac80211 snd_seq uvcvideo snd_seq_device snd_pcm thinkpad_acpi snd_timer videodev snd cfg80211 e1000e i7core_edac media v4l2_compat_ioctl32 xhci_hcd edac_core i2c_i801 snd_page_alloc rfkill iTCO_wdt pcspkr iTCO_vendor_support soundcore microcode uinput sunrpc ipv6 sdhci_pci sdhci mmc_core ehci_hcd nouveau ttm drm_kms_helper drm i2c_algo_bit i2c_core mxm_wmi wmi video [last unloaded: scsi_wait_scan] [32943.463949] Pid: 63, comm:
irq/9-acpi Tainted: G        W    3.2.7-rt13+ #40 [32943.463951] Call
Trace: [32943.463958]  [<ffffffff815ca1b8>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x62

[32943.463963]  [<ffffffff815dedcd>] __schedule+0x6ed/0x760
[32943.463966]  [<ffffffff815df27e>] schedule+0x2e/0xa0 [32943.463970]
[<ffffffff815e0951>] rt_spin_lock_slowlock+0x150/0x1ef [32943.463975]
[<ffffffff81056d01>] ? check_same_owner+0x31/0x80 [32943.463978]
[<ffffffff815e0ee6>] rt_spin_lock+0x26/0x30 [32943.463983]
[<ffffffff81160cdc>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x6c/0x320 [32943.463987]
[<ffffffff8135a307>] ? acpi_hw_write_port+0x43/0x98 [32943.463991]
[<ffffffff81346714>] ? acpi_ec_sync_query+0x102/0x102 [32943.463995]
[<ffffffff81340fcd>] __acpi_os_execute+0x35/0xc6 [32943.463998]
[<ffffffff8134106e>] acpi_os_execute+0x10/0x12 [32943.464001]
[<ffffffff81346e1f>] acpi_ec_gpe_handler+0xad/0xb6 [32943.464004]
[<ffffffff81351baa>] acpi_ev_gpe_dispatch+0xc5/0x13e [32943.464007]
[<ffffffff81351cd8>] acpi_ev_gpe_detect+0xb5/0x10d [32943.464012]
[<ffffffff810d7560>] ? irq_thread_fn+0x50/0x50 [32943.464015]
[<ffffffff813502a6>] acpi_ev_sci_xrupt_handler+0x22/0x2b
[32943.464017]  [<ffffffff81341086>] acpi_irq+0x16/0x31 [32943.464020]
[<ffffffff810d758e>] irq_forced_thread_fn+0x2e/0x70 [32943.464023]
[<ffffffff810d748a>] irq_thread+0x17a/0x200 [32943.464026]
[<ffffffff810d7310>] ? irq_finalize_oneshot+0x20/0x20 [32943.464030]
[<ffffffff81094578>] kthread+0x98/0xa0 [32943.464034]
[<ffffffff815e9d74>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 [32943.464037]
[<ffffffff810944e0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70 [32943.464040]
[<ffffffff815e9d70>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13

Quoted 4 lines

I'll dig into it a bit more but my guess is that it was something battery releated (I'd accidentally kicked the power cord out at a coffee shop and noticed that I was down to 28% battery, when I then noticed that I had a traceback).

That's a known issue and has been reported over and over. That's due to making the acpi locks raw. Now I can't find any bug report which tells me WHY the heck we made those locks raw in the first place. All I can remember is that the trace back came deep from the idle code.

That's why I asked to revert the

      acpi-make-gbl-hardware-lock-raw.patch
      acpi-make-ec-lock-raw-as-well.patch

patches, so we can get that information.

It might be a non issue on 3.2 and only a 3.0 problem, but as I can't find anything I'm going to drop those patches from the next 3.2 release and wait for proper bugreports coming again :)

Quoted 7 lines · Thomas Gleixner

That's why I asked to revert the

      acpi-make-gbl-hardware-lock-raw.patch
      acpi-make-ec-lock-raw-as-well.patch

patches, so we can get that information.

Quoted 4 lines

It might be a non issue on 3.2 and only a 3.0 problem, but as I can't find anything I'm going to drop those patches from the next 3.2 release and wait for proper bugreports coming again :)

FWIW
I believe the latter comes from here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/3/53

Quoted 13 lines · John Kacur

Quoted 11 lines · Thomas Gleixner

That's why I asked to revert the

      acpi-make-gbl-hardware-lock-raw.patch
      acpi-make-ec-lock-raw-as-well.patch

patches, so we can get that information.

It might be a non issue on 3.2 and only a 3.0 problem, but as I can't find anything I'm going to drop those patches from the next 3.2 release and wait for proper bugreports coming again :)

Quoted 2 lines

FWIW
I believe the latter comes from here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/3/53

And how does that help? I know that the ec lock conversion was a follow up to the gbl hardware lock conversion, but I need to see the backtrace again which made us convert gbl lock.