Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 May 2007 12:09:56 -0700 | From | "Ray Lee" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] make hci_notifier a blocking notifier (was Re: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/sock.c:1523) |
| |
Apologies for taking so long to get back to you -- I've been on the road for the last week and have finally got to a point where I could test the patch.
On 5/6/07, Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@gmail.com> wrote: > (Dropped Pavel, Rafael and linux-pm from CC list, this isn't a PM > error so don't want to spam them; and added bluez-devel) > > On 5/7/07, Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org> wrote: > > On 5/6/07, Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: > > > On Sun, 6 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, the hci_notifier is called from the following six call sites: > > > > > > > > hci_dev_open() and hci_dev_close() -> both called from > > > > hci_sock_ioctl() => both can sleep > > > > hci_register_dev() and hci_unregister_dev() => again both are capable > > > > of sleeping > > > > hci_suspend_dev() and hci_resume_dev() -> called from the .suspend() > > > > and .resume() of the hci_usb_driver, and again both of these can sleep > > > > > > > > Is there any other reason why hci_notifier must be an atomic notifier? > > > > > > > > (CC'ing Alan Stern just in case, apparently hci_notifier became atomic > > > > when notifier chains were classified into atomic / blocking) > > > > > > I don't remember exactly why this particular choice was made. Perhaps we > > > found that the notifier callout routines didn't use any blocking > > > primitives (we may have been mistaken about this -- there was a lot of > > > code to check) and so therefore the choice didn't matter. In that case we > > > probably just decided to make it an atomic notifier to keep things simple. > > > > > > As you found, changing it to a blocking notifier is very easy. Provided > > > all the callers are non-atomic it should work just fine. > > > > Okay, I'll go ahead and try the patch, then, and report back. > > You'd still get the BUG message. To fully resolve the problem, we need > to make the hci_sock_dev_event() notifier callout blocking (which > happened with this patch) but also convert hci_sk_list.lock to a > rwsem, but some users of that rwlock (other than hci_sock_dev_event) > are atomic. > > However, please do try and get back, as your testing would still be > helpful to see whether converting hci_notifier to blocking had other > side-effects -- if you only see the same message again and otherwise > things seem fine, then we're good as far as at least this change was > concerned.
Yes, it's roughly the same trace. There are some differences, though those are likely due to me finding a new way to trigger the issue. (My laptop has a button to turn the WiFi/Bluetooth on and off. Hitting that and causing a disconnect of the internal Bluetooth connector triggers the same issue without going through a suspend/resume cycle.)
[ 272.539154] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/sock.c:1547 [ 272.539161] in_atomic():1, irqs_disabled():0 [ 272.539163] 2 locks held by khubd/1350: [ 272.539165] #0: ((hci_notifier).rwsem){----}, at: [<ffffffff8023741b>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x3b/0x80 [ 272.539175] #1: (old_style_rw_init#2){-.-?}, at: [<ffffffff88203c53>] hci_sock_dev_event+0x53/0x100 [bluetooth] [ 272.539196] [ 272.539197] Call Trace: [ 272.539203] [<ffffffff80245833>] debug_show_held_locks+0x13/0x30 [ 272.539216] [<ffffffff80224963>] __might_sleep+0xc3/0xf0 [ 272.539221] [<ffffffff803c29dc>] lock_sock_nested+0x2c/0x120 [ 272.539231] [<ffffffff88203c53>] :bluetooth:hci_sock_dev_event+0x53/0x100 [ 272.539241] [<ffffffff88203c76>] :bluetooth:hci_sock_dev_event+0x76/0x100 [ 272.539250] [<ffffffff8045d073>] notifier_call_chain+0x53/0x80 [ 272.539256] [<ffffffff80237431>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x51/0x80 [ 272.539262] [<ffffffff80237471>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x11/0x20 [ 272.539270] [<ffffffff881fed16>] :bluetooth:hci_notify+0x16/0x20 [ 272.539278] [<ffffffff881ffdbb>] :bluetooth:hci_unregister_dev+0x5b/0x80 [ 272.539286] [<ffffffff88224136>] :hci_usb:hci_usb_disconnect+0x56/0x90 [ 272.539309] [<ffffffff8801e66e>] :usbcore:usb_unbind_interface+0x4e/0xa0 [ 272.539315] [<ffffffff80380d86>] __device_release_driver+0x86/0xc0 [ 272.539320] [<ffffffff803812e6>] device_release_driver+0x46/0x70 [ 272.539325] [<ffffffff803804e3>] bus_remove_device+0x63/0x90 [ 272.539329] [<ffffffff8037e474>] device_del+0x1a4/0x2e0 [ 272.539344] [<ffffffff8801b8c6>] :usbcore:usb_disable_device+0x96/0x120 [ 272.539358] [<ffffffff880173ba>] :usbcore:usb_disconnect+0xba/0x140 [ 272.539372] [<ffffffff88017ac3>] :usbcore:hub_thread+0x263/0xdb0 [ 272.539382] [<ffffffff80456b66>] __sched_text_start+0x296/0x2ce [ 272.539389] [<ffffffff8023eb30>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40 [ 272.539403] [<ffffffff88017860>] :usbcore:hub_thread+0x0/0xdb0 [ 272.539408] [<ffffffff8023e73d>] kthread+0x4d/0x80 [ 272.539414] [<ffffffff8020a298>] child_rip+0xa/0x12 [ 272.539420] [<ffffffff80209e50>] restore_args+0x0/0x30 [ 272.539424] [<ffffffff8023e844>] kthreadd+0xd4/0x160 [ 272.539429] [<ffffffff8023e6f0>] kthread+0x0/0x80 [ 272.539433] [<ffffffff8020a28e>] child_rip+0x0/0x12
Ray - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |