I've been seeing these warnings for a couple of weeks now. Any
pointers on how to address this would be much appreciated.
[ 57.207457] ==
[ 57.207470] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 57.207483] 5.11.0-rc7
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:17:13PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:38:41PM +0200, pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c
> > b/drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c
> > index 8efd7c2a34fe..1717790ece2b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/amba-
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:38:41PM +0200, pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:13:13AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Using magic-sysrq via a keyboard interrupt over the serial console results
> > in
> > the following lockdep splat with the PL011 UART driver on v5.8. I can
> >
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:13:13AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Using magic-sysrq via a keyboard interrupt over the serial console results in
> the following lockdep splat with the PL011 UART driver on v5.8. I can
> reproduce
> the issue under QEMU with arm64 defconfig + PROVE_LOCKING.
>
6.387378] ==
[ 56.387391] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 56.387401] 5.8.0 #2 Not tainted
[ 56.387411] --
[ 56.387421] swapper/0/0 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 56.387467] b190db294ab0 (conso
=====
[ 51.013875] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 51.014378] 5.2.0-rc2 #1 Not tainted
[ 51.014672] --
[ 51.015182] trinity-c2/886 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 51.015593] 000
On 19/09/2019 15.27, Martin Hundebøll wrote:
But we haven't been able to reproduce locally.
Scratch that. It's reliably reproduced by sending/saturating the uart
with outgoing data.
// Martin
201.633281] ==
[ 201.639473] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 201.645667] 4.19.22 #1 Not tainted
[ 201.649078] --
[ 201.655270] kworker/u2:0/7 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 201.660337
image memory: 944K
> [ 15.393319] Run /init as init process
> [ 15.477473] random: init: uninitialized urandom read (12 bytes read)
> [ 15.558322]
> [ 15.559003] ==
> [ 15.561203] WARNING: possible circular locking depende
Cc-ing Sahara
On (03/29/19 16:35), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> 5.1.0-rc2-next-20190329
>
> [8.168722] ==
> [8.168723] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [8.168724] 5.1.0-rc2-next-201
5.1.0-rc2-next-20190329
[8.168722] ==
[8.168723] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[8.168724] 5.1.0-rc2-next-20190329-dbg-00014-g4d25d68aaf88-dirty #3228 Not
tainted
[8.168725
Compiling kernel on an aarch64 server with the latest mainline (rc2) generated
this,
[ 910.263839] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 910.263841] 4.20.0-rc2+ #4 Tainted: GWL
[ 910.263843] --
[ 910.263844
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:43:36 -0800 Andrew Morton
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:04 +0800 kernel test robot
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> > >
> >
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:43:36 -0800 Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:04 +0800 kernel test robot
> wrote:
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.gi
--+---+---+
>
> [ 29.227068] random: get_random_bytes called from key_alloc+0x2b0/0x44d
> with crng_init=1
> [ 32.046253] random: get_random_bytes called from
> __ip_select_ident+0x45/0x93 with crng_init=1
> [ 33.592007] random: get_random_bytes called from key_alloc+0x2b0/0x44d
> with crng_init=1
] [ 57.651003] synth uevent: /module/pcmcia_core: unknown uevent action
string [ 71.189062] [ 71.191953]
== [ 71.192813] WARNING:
possible circular locking dependency detected [ 71.193664]
4.12.0-10480-g3f906ba #1 Not tainted [ 71.194355
> HI:3700] [ 57.651003] synth uevent: /module/pcmcia_core: unknown uevent
> action string [ 71.189062] [ 71.191953]
> ====== [ 71.192813] WARNING:
> possible circular locking dependency detected [ 71.193664]
&g
On 2017-12-18 20:06:12 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:55:24 -0600
> Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I've tried to run stress-ng on TI am57xx-evm (SMP, 2 cpu) and caught 2
> > "INFO: possible circular locking d
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:55:24 -0600
Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've tried to run stress-ng on TI am57xx-evm (SMP, 2 cpu) and caught 2
> "INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected"
>
> Command 1 (log 1):
> ## stress-ng --class cpu
Hi All,
I've tried to run stress-ng on TI am57xx-evm (SMP, 2 cpu) and caught 2 "INFO:
possible circular locking dependency detected"
Command 1 (log 1):
## stress-ng --class cpu --all 0 -t 5m & stress-ng --class memory --all 0
--vm-bytes 90% -t 5m
Command 2 (log 2):
## s
gt; | Kernel_panic-not_syncing:Fatal_exception | 0 | 15
>> |
>> +---+---++
>>
>> [3.252870] CPU feature 'AVX registers' is not supported.
>> [3.261404]
>|
> +---+---++
>
> [3.252870] CPU feature 'AVX registers' is not supported.
> [3.261404] AVX2 or AES-NI instructions are not detected.
> [3.262708] A
Hey Jan,
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 04:19:15PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2017-09-27 15:21, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > On 2017-09-27 14:14, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> while I'm triggering this with a still out-of-tree module from the
> >> Jailhouse project, the potential deadlock appears to me being unrela
ted
>> to it. Please have a look:
>>
>> ==========
>> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>> 4.14.0-rc2-dbg+ #176 Tainted: G O
>> --
>> jailhouse/6105 is trying to
====
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.14.0-rc2-dbg+ #176 Tainted: G O
> --
> jailhouse/6105 is trying to acquire lock:
> dmar_pci_bus_notifier+0x4f/0xcb
>
> but task is already hold
Hi,
while I'm triggering this with a still out-of-tree module from the
Jailhouse project, the potential deadlock appears to me being unrelated
to it. Please have a look:
==
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
4.14.0-rc
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:24:13PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > Arghh!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > And allowing us to create
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Arghh!!!
> > > >
> > > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but
> > > > maybe slightly tricky)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Arghh!!!
> > >
> > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but
> > > maybe slightly tricky) won't solve that, because we're already holding
> > > the
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Arghh!!!
> >
> > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but
> > maybe slightly tricky) won't solve that, because we're already holding
> > the hotplug_lock during PREPARE.
>
> There are two ways to
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context
> > > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context
> > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF +
> > HOTPLUG_OFFSET = -33.
> >
> > That's smalle
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context
> events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF +
> HOTPLUG_OFFSET = -33.
>
> That's smaller than ERROR and thus perf_event_enable() no-ops on events
> for offline CPUs
Hello Peter,
On (08/30/17 10:47), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[..]
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it
> > harder to find and fix.
> >
> > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I
m; ax...@kernel.dk; linux-
> s...@vger.kernel.org; s...@canb.auug.org.au; linux-n...@vger.kernel.org;
> kernel-t...@lge.com
> Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-
> next: Tree for Aug 22]
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it
> harder to find and fix.
>
> stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I've not yet
> checked if crossrelease does too much of that.
Aah, we do a
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:15:11PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote:
> [..]
> > > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim
> > > is irritatingly slow)
> >
> > To Ingo,
> >
> > I cannot decide if we have to roll back C
Hi,
On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]
> > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim
> > is irritatingly slow)
>
> To Ingo,
>
> I cannot decide if we have to roll back CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
> dependency on CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING in Kconfig. With them en
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So I have a patch _somewhere_ that preserves the event<->cpu relation
> > across hotplug and disable/enable would be sufficient. If you want I can
> > try and dig that out and make it w
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:20:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Byungchul, a quick question.
Hello Sergey,
> have you measured the performance impact? somehow my linux-next is
Yeah, it might have performance impact inevitably.
> notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling
On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]
> > Byungchul, did you add the crosslock checks to lockdep? Can you have a look
> > at
> > the above report? That report namely doesn't make sense to me.
>
> The report is talking about the following lockup:
>
> A work in a worker
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:40:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > One solution I'm looking into right now is to reverse the lock order and
> > actually make the hotplug code do:
> >
> > watchdog_lock();
> > cpu_write_lock();
> >
> >
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:40:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> One solution I'm looking into right now is to reverse the lock order and
> actually make the hotplug code do:
>
>watchdog_lock();
>cpu_write_lock();
>
>
>cpu_write_unlock();
>watchdog_u
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > ==
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 4.13.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> What's worse, there's also:
>
> cpus_write_lock()
> ...
> takedown_cpu()
> smpboot_park_threads()
> smpboot_park_thread()
> kthread_park()
> ->park() := watchdog_disable()
> watchdog_nmi_di
t; tglx says I have something for ya :-)
> > >
> > > ==========
> > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > > 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
> > > --
> >
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:58:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > tglx says I have something for ya :-)
> >
> > ======
>
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hey,
>
> tglx says I have something for ya :-)
>
> ======
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.13.
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> | ==
> | WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> | 4.13.0-rc6-00758-gd80d4177391
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > ==
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 4.13.
On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hey,
Hi Borislav,
> tglx says I have something for ya :-)
:)
> ==
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.13.0-rc6+
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
> > We hold the sparse_irq_lock lock while waiting for the completion in the
> > CPU-down case and in the CPU-up case we acquire the sparse_irq_lock lock
> > while the other CPU is wai
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> ==
>> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>> 4.13.
On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> ==
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
> --
While looking at this, I s
.config
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
#
# Automatically generated file; DO NOT EDIT.
# Linux/x86 4.13.0-rc6 Kernel Configuration
#
CONFIG_64BIT=y
CONFIG_X86_64=y
CONFIG_X86=y
CONFIG_INSTRUCTION_DECODER=y
CONFIG_OUTPUT_FORMAT="e
Hey,
tglx says I have something for ya :-)
==
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
--
watchdog/3/27 is trying to acquire lock
Hi,
On (08/24/17 12:39), Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont
> > > > buffer immediately.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm.. Not quite fam
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont
> > > buffer immediately.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several
> > us
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> The report is talking about the following lockup:
>
> A work in a worker A task work on exit to user
> -- --
On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote:
> > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont
> > buffer immediately.
> >
>
> Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several
> usages of printk(KERN_CONT "...\n") in kernel.
>
> Did a bit research myself, and I
On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote:
[..]
> > > printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
> >
> > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont
> > buffer immediately.
> >
>
> Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several
> usages of printk(KERN_CONT "...\
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:38:13PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> From: Boqun Feng
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:12:16 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: Print proper scenario if cross deadlock detected at
> acquisition time
>
> For a potential deadlock about CROSSRELEASE as follow:
>
> P1
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:46:48PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/23/17 12:38), Boqun Feng wrote:
> [..]
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > index 642fb5362507..a3709e15f609 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
t Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > > ==========
> > > > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > > > &
On (08/23/17 12:38), Boqun Feng wrote:
[..]
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 642fb5362507..a3709e15f609 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -1156,6 +1156,23 @@ print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src,
>
Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > ==
> > > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > > > 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746 Not tainted
> > > > --
Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > ==
> > > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > > > 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746 Not tainted
> > > > --
ocking/lockdep.c | 22 ++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 66011c9f5df3..642fb5362507 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1195,17
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:36:49AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote:
> [..]
>
> aha, ok
>
> > The report is talking about the following lockup:
> >
> > A work in a worker A task work on exit to user
> > --
On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]
aha, ok
> The report is talking about the following lockup:
>
> A work in a worker A task work on exit to user
> -- ---
> mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex)
>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > ==
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-db
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> ==
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746 No
Hello,
==
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746 Not tainted
--
fsck.ext4/148 is trying to acquire lock:
(&
] ==
[ 1274.378289] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 1274.378290]
4.12.0-rc1-next-20170522-dbg-7-gc09b2ab28b74-dirty #1317 Not
tainted
[ 1274.378291] --
[ 1274.378293] kworker/u8
> > > >
> > > > [ 1274.378287] ======
> > > > [ 1274.378289] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > > > [ 1274.378290]
> > > > 4.12.0-rc1-n
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky
wrote:
>
> [ 1274.378287] ==
> [ 1274.378289] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 1274.378290] 4.12.0-rc1-next-20170522-dbg-7-gc09b2ab28b74-dirty #1317
&
On 05/22/17 12:27, Vegard Nossum wrote:
On 05/22/17 12:24, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 04:39:43PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
[ 1274.378287] ==
[ 1274.378289] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency
Hello,
[9.610781] ==
[9.610784] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[9.610789] 4.12.0-rc2-next-20170523-dbg-dirty #231 Not tainted
[9.610791] --
[9.610795
On (05/22/17 12:24), Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
[..]
> Any hint as to what you were doing when this happened?
nothing special at all. just logged in, basically.
> Does this also show up in 4.11?
seen only once so far.
I'm somewhat suspicious that this might be related to 925bb1ce47f429,
Vegard i
On 05/22/17 12:24, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 04:39:43PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
Hello,
[ 1274.378287] ==
[ 1274.378289] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 1274.378290] 4.12.0-rc1-next
On 05/22/2017, 12:24 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 04:39:43PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> [ 1274.378287] ==
>> [ 1274.378289] WARNING: possible circular locking dependenc
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 04:39:43PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [ 1274.378287] ==
> [ 1274.378289] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 1274.378290] 4.12.0-rc1-next-20170522-dbg-7-gc09
Hello,
[ 1274.378287] ==
[ 1274.378289] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 1274.378290] 4.12.0-rc1-next-20170522-dbg-7-gc09b2ab28b74-dirty #1317 Not
tainted
[ 1274.378291
4adfdd06f1-r0-hikey-20170515030615-10.uefi.img
>> Rootfs:
>>- rpb-console-image-hikey-20170515030615-10.rootfs.img.gz
>>
>> steps to reproduce:
>> --
>> - sudo fastboot flash boot
>> boot-0.0+AUTOINC+06e4def583-4adfdd06f1-r0-hikey-2017
On 18-05-17, 16:08, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 18 May 2017 at 16:05, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > Boot HiKey board.
> >
> > [ 76.039134] ==
> > [ 76.045319] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> &g
.uefi.img
> - sudo fastboot flash system
> rpb-console-image-hikey-20170515030615-10.rootfs.img
>
> Boot HiKey board.
>
> [ 76.039134] ======
> [ 76.045319] WARNING: p
-0.0+AUTOINC+06e4def583-4adfdd06f1-r0-hikey-20170515030615-10.uefi.img
- sudo fastboot flash system
rpb-console-image-hikey-20170515030615-10.rootfs.img
Boot HiKey board.
[ 76.039134] ==
[ 76.045319] WARNING: possible circular locking
ild0:342] child exiting.
Bailing main loop. Exit reason: UID changed.
[ 69.250950]
[ 69.251227] ==
[ 69.252022] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 69.252715] 4.11.0-rc6-00240-gd215aab #1 Not tainte
[ 23.762311] ==
[ 23.763199] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 23.764101] 4.11.0-rc6-00237-g6362ef3 #1 Not tainted
[ 23.764847] ---
[ 23.765822] trinity-main/352 is tr
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:21:09PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> [ 530.698622] ==
> [ 530.698623] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 530.698626] 4.11.0-rc2-mm1-dbg-00167-gdb8a9941614c
Hello,
[ 530.698622] ==
[ 530.698623] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 530.698626] 4.11.0-rc2-mm1-dbg-00167-gdb8a9941614c-dirty #222 Not tainted
[ 530.698627
18.172662]
[ 18.173782] ==
[ 18.177716] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 18.181715] 4.8.0-rc5-00438-g7c14957 #1 Not tainted
[ 18.184921] ---
[ 18.188716] swap
Hello,
[2.375503] ==
[2.375504] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[2.375505] 4.7.0-next-20160727-dbg-4-g32e4851-dirty #770 Not tainted
[2.375506
; >
> > caused below changes:
> >
>
>
> >
> > [ 21.116124] ==========
> > [ 21.116124] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > [ 21.116127] 4.6.0-rc5-00302-g409ca71 #1 Not tainted
> > [ 21.11612
swapin in khugepaged")
>
> on test machine: vm-kbuild-1G: 2 threads qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu
> Haswell,+smep,+smap with 1G memory
>
> caused below changes:
>
>
> [ 21.116124] ======
> [ 21.116124] [
: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 17.687174] 4.5.0-rc6-1-gdd9a6fe #64 Not tainted
[ 17.688127] ---
[ 17.689216] bootlogd/2434 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 17.690167] ((&buf->work)){+.+...}, at: []
flu
15.345268] ==
[ 15.345268] ==
[ 15.346491] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 15.346491] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 15.347758] 4.5.0-rc3-00013-g681c3cb #2 Not tainted
[ 15.347
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 11:58:18AM +0200, Marcin Ślusarz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:01:56PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:48:24PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Paul E. McKenney
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 02:01:56PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:48:24PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > > commit a1992f2f3b8e174d740a8f764d0d51344bed2eed
> >
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:48:24PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > commit a1992f2f3b8e174d740a8f764d0d51344bed2eed
> > > Author: Paul E. McKenney
> > > Date: Tue Jul 14 16:24:14 2015 -0700
>
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
