Re: 3.2.0-rc4+ (Linus GIT af968e29acd91ebeb4224e899202c46c93171ecd)-- Freezing of tasks failed after 20.01 seconds (1 tasks refusing to freeze,wq_busy=0):

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat
Date: Sat Dec 03 2011 - 01:55:31 EST

Next message: Willy Tarreau: "Re: [stable] 2.6.32.21 - uptime related crashes?"
Previous message: Brian Gerst: "Re: [Provisional Page Table] Why the linear address ranges startingboth from 0 and PAGE_OFFSET are mapped to the same physical address range inthe provisional page table?"
In reply to: Miles Lane: "3.2.0-rc4+ (Linus GIT af968e29acd91ebeb4224e899202c46c93171ecd) --Freezing of tasks failed after 20.01 seconds (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0):"
Next in thread: Miles Lane: "Re: 3.2.0-rc4+ (Linus GIT af968e29acd91ebeb4224e899202c46c93171ecd)-- Freezing of tasks failed after 20.01 seconds (1 tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0):"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 12/03/2011 09:22 AM, Miles Lane wrote:

> While reading a file in sysfs, I suspended tried to suspend the machine and got:
>
> [ 1058.644957] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done.
> [ 1059.670167] Freezing user space processes ...
> [ 1079.681175] Freezing of tasks failed after 20.01 seconds (1 tasks
> refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0):
> [ 1079.682077] head D ffff88013a753680 5328 9761 9402 0x00800004
> [ 1079.682086] ffff88011b15fd28 0000000000000046 0000000000000006
> ffffffff8160d020
> [ 1079.682095] ffff880100000000 ffff88013a7532d0 ffff88011b15ffd8
> ffff88011b15ffd8
> [ 1079.682102] 0000000000010bc0 ffff88013a7532d0 ffffffff81372d96
> 000000013a7532d0
> [ 1079.682110] Call Trace:
> [ 1079.682120] [<ffffffff81372d96>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x26e/0x41e
> [ 1079.682126] [<ffffffff8137241a>] schedule+0x55/0x57
> [ 1079.682131] [<ffffffff81372dbf>] __mutex_lock_common+0x297/0x41e
> [ 1079.682137] [<ffffffff810c675d>] ? lock_memory_hotplug+0x20/0x22
> [ 1079.682142] [<ffffffff810c675d>] ? lock_memory_hotplug+0x20/0x22
> [ 1079.682149] [<ffffffff8137302d>] mutex_lock_nested+0x36/0x3b
> [ 1079.682153] [<ffffffff810c675d>] lock_memory_hotplug+0x20/0x22

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wow! There, Tejun, did you see that? That is just what we fixed in
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/21/334 !! :-)

But since Rafael kept it for the next merge window, we hit this failure
in 3.2-rc4.

Well, atleast for once I am feeling extremely happy that we *actually*
fixed a problem _before_ hitting it! :-)

Miles, thanks for the report. Can you please try the patch given in the
above link?

> [ 1079.682160] [<ffffffff810c53e7>] show_slab_objects+0xfc/0x1e5
> [ 1079.682166] [<ffffffff810c550e>] partial_show+0xe/0x10
> [ 1079.682171] [<ffffffff810c23b7>] slab_attr_show+0x1d/0x21
> [ 1079.682177] [<ffffffff811235c9>] sysfs_read_file+0xb7/0x13c
> [ 1079.682183] [<ffffffff810ccdd3>] vfs_read+0xa0/0xc7
> [ 1079.682188] [<ffffffff810ce0d3>] ? fget_light+0x35/0x97
> [ 1079.682194] [<ffffffff810cce3f>] sys_read+0x45/0x69
> [ 1079.682199] [<ffffffff81378d3b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
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/