From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 11 17:05:57 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: acpi@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB2116A41F; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:05:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from ylpvm12.prodigy.net (ylpvm12-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.57.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A45F43D45; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:05:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from ylpvm01.prodigy.net (ylpvm01-int.prodigy.net [207.115.5.207]) by ylpvm12.prodigy.net (8.12.10 outbound/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j7BH5sck027301; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:05:54 -0400 X-ORBL: [64.171.187.230] Received: from [10.0.5.50] (adsl-64-171-187-230.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.171.187.230]) by ylpvm01.prodigy.net (8.13.4 dk-milter linux/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7BH5jOs001761; Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:05:45 -0400 Message-ID: <42FB856C.1000205@root.org> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:05:48 -0700 From: Nate Lawson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050723) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <20050810173347.I30058@gauntlet.os.org.za> <200508111026.02924.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200508111026.02924.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: acpi@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Khetan Gajjar Subject: Re: ACPI issue in 7-current ? 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: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:05:58 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 10 August 2005 11:41 am, Khetan Gajjar wrote: > >>Hi. >> >>I've been running a 6-current box which I upgraded recently to 7. >>At the same time, I disabled WITNESS and INVARIANTS in the kernel. >>I've noticed the machine doing some very weird things ever since. > > > Looks like the locking in acpi_tz is rather busted as it has tried to hold a > mutex across kthread_create() which is not ok. That is where the LOR's come > from at least. I'm not sure if that is the cause of your other problems > though. > > >>acpi_tz0: on acpi0 >>malloc(M_WAITOK) of "PROC", forcing M_NOWAIT with the following >>non-sleepable lo cks held: >>exclusive sleep mutex ACPI thermal zone r = 0 (0xc0859d20) locked @ Too late, it was introduced by the passive cooling commit and fixed a while ago by ume@. -- Nate