From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 4 21:24:57 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27409106566C for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 21:24:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from robert.moore@intel.com) Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDED8FC0C for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 21:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2009 13:24:21 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,344,1257148800"; d="scan'208";a="575775519" Received: from orsmsx604.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.226.87]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2009 13:24:41 -0800 Received: from orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.226.47]) by orsmsx604.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.250.113.17]) with mapi; Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:24:56 -0800 From: "Moore, Robert" To: Andriy Gapon Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 13:24:54 -0800 Thread-Topic: panic in AcpiExReleaseMutex Thread-Index: Acp1J7DU3EWoIXfRRou5OPs0BUQK5wAADtxw Message-ID: <4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D8308583E8F2C06@orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <4B178387.4050601@icyb.net.ua> <4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D8308583E8F26CF@orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com> <4B189CD6.30906@icyb.net.ua> <4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D8308583E8F2A1F@orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com> <4B1975EE.5070803@icyb.net.ua> <4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D8308583E8F2BA9@orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com> <4B197D0E.1020400@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4B197D0E.1020400@icyb.net.ua> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" , Tarick Subject: RE: panic in AcpiExReleaseMutex X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:24:57 -0000 >This thread has a fixed tid of 100000. This is ok. Well, I don't see anything obvious. You will probably need to step through = the calls to AcpiExAcquireMutex and AcpiExReleaseMutex, or at least add som= e printfs to monitor the value of WalkState->Thread->AcquiredMutexList. Another question, however: is the global lock involved in any way? >-----Original Message----- >From: Andriy Gapon [mailto:avg@icyb.net.ua] >Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 1:20 PM >To: Moore, Robert >Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org; Tarick >Subject: Re: panic in AcpiExReleaseMutex > >on 04/12/2009 22:59 Moore, Robert said the following: >> It would appear that a GPE is taken, for the EC device, thus invoking >> EcGpeQueryHandler. In what context is _Q20 or _Q09 executed? > >It's invoked in "polling mode" at that stage. Interrupts are not enabled >yet at >that point. Let me quote my original report: >[quote] >_REG method seems to access some registers in EC address space (with >\_SB.PCI0.LPC0.EC0.MUT1 mutex locked). That access triggers a call to >EcSpaceHandler. Now, we have a code in EcSpaceHandler that makes a direct >call >to EcGpeQueryHandler during a cold boot phase if SCI bit is set in CSR >register. >EcGpeQueryHandler performs an EC query and executes _Qxx method if need. >[/quote] > >So, everything happens in the same thread with the same context and stack. > >> This might be an important question: What is the thread_id of this >initial >> thread? > >This thread has a fixed tid of 100000. > >>> -----Original Message----- From: Andriy Gapon [mailto:avg@icyb.net.ua] >>> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:50 PM To: Moore, Robert Cc: >>> freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org; Tarick Subject: Re: panic in >AcpiExReleaseMutex >>> >>> on 04/12/2009 20:45 Moore, Robert said the following: >>>> Yes, you are correct. I did not have the code in front of me at the >time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When AcpiExReleaseMutex is called, apparently the mutex is in fact >held, >>>> otherwise the function would have aborted immediately. >>>> >>>> When the mutex is held, the Thread->AcquiredMutexList is expected to >hold >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> (at >>>> the minimum) the mutex object being released. Something is very wrong >if >>> this >>>> list is NULL when releasing the mutex. >>>> >>>> Just to make sure: All of this is happening in the same thread? >>> Yes, this happens when there is only the initial thread running on BSP, >no >>> other threads are started yet. >>> >>> >>> -- Andriy Gapon > > >-- >Andriy Gapon