linux/drivers/acpi/battery.c

1199 lines
35 KiB

include cleanup: Update gfp.h and slab.h includes to prepare for breaking implicit slab.h inclusion from percpu.h percpu.h is included by sched.h and module.h and thus ends up being included when building most .c files. percpu.h includes slab.h which in turn includes gfp.h making everything defined by the two files universally available and complicating inclusion dependencies. percpu.h -> slab.h dependency is about to be removed. Prepare for this change by updating users of gfp and slab facilities include those headers directly instead of assuming availability. As this conversion needs to touch large number of source files, the following script is used as the basis of conversion. http://userweb.kernel.org/~tj/misc/slabh-sweep.py The script does the followings. * Scan files for gfp and slab usages and update includes such that only the necessary includes are there. ie. if only gfp is used, gfp.h, if slab is used, slab.h. * When the script inserts a new include, it looks at the include blocks and try to put the new include such that its order conforms to its surrounding. It's put in the include block which contains core kernel includes, in the same order that the rest are ordered - alphabetical, Christmas tree, rev-Xmas-tree or at the end if there doesn't seem to be any matching order. * If the script can't find a place to put a new include (mostly because the file doesn't have fitting include block), it prints out an error message indicating which .h file needs to be added to the file. The conversion was done in the following steps. 1. The initial automatic conversion of all .c files updated slightly over 4000 files, deleting around 700 includes and adding ~480 gfp.h and ~3000 slab.h inclusions. The script emitted errors for ~400 files. 2. Each error was manually checked. Some didn't need the inclusion, some needed manual addition while adding it to implementation .h or embedding .c file was more appropriate for others. This step added inclusions to around 150 files. 3. The script was run again and the output was compared to the edits from #2 to make sure no file was left behind. 4. Several build tests were done and a couple of problems were fixed. e.g. lib/decompress_*.c used malloc/free() wrappers around slab APIs requiring slab.h to be added manually. 5. The script was run on all .h files but without automatically editing them as sprinkling gfp.h and slab.h inclusions around .h files could easily lead to inclusion dependency hell. Most gfp.h inclusion directives were ignored as stuff from gfp.h was usually wildly available and often used in preprocessor macros. Each slab.h inclusion directive was examined and added manually as necessary. 6. percpu.h was updated not to include slab.h. 7. Build test were done on the following configurations and failures were fixed. CONFIG_GCOV_KERNEL was turned off for all tests (as my distributed build env didn't work with gcov compiles) and a few more options had to be turned off depending on archs to make things build (like ipr on powerpc/64 which failed due to missing writeq). * x86 and x86_64 UP and SMP allmodconfig and a custom test config. * powerpc and powerpc64 SMP allmodconfig * sparc and sparc64 SMP allmodconfig * ia64 SMP allmodconfig * s390 SMP allmodconfig * alpha SMP allmodconfig * um on x86_64 SMP allmodconfig 8. percpu.h modifications were reverted so that it could be applied as a separate patch and serve as bisection point. Given the fact that I had only a couple of failures from tests on step 6, I'm fairly confident about the coverage of this conversion patch. If there is a breakage, it's likely to be something in one of the arch headers which should be easily discoverable easily on most builds of the specific arch. Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Guess-its-ok-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
2010-03-24 17:04:11 +09:00
ACPI / battery: Correct battery capacity values on Thinkpads Add a quirk to correctly report battery capacity on 2010 and 2011 Lenovo Thinkpad models. The affected models that I tested (x201, t410, t410s, and x220) exhibit a problem where, when battery capacity reporting unit is mAh, the values being reported are wrong. Pre-2010 and 2012 models appear to always report in mWh and are thus unaffected. Also, in mid-2012 Lenovo issued a BIOS update for the 2011 models that fixes the issue (tested on x220 with a post-1.29 BIOS). No such update is available for the 2010 models, so those still need this patch. Problem description: for some reason, the affected Thinkpads switch the reporting unit between mAh and mWh; generally, mAh is used when a laptop is plugged in and mWh when it's unplugged, although a suspend/resume or rmmod/modprobe is needed for the switch to take effect. The values reported in mAh are *always* wrong. This does not appear to be a kernel regression; I believe that the values were never reported correctly. I tested back to kernel 2.6.34, with multiple machines and BIOS versions. Simply plugging a laptop into mains before turning it on is enough to reproduce the problem. Here's a sample /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/info from Thinkpad x220 (before a BIOS update) with a 4-cell battery: present: yes design capacity: 2886 mAh last full capacity: 2909 mAh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 145 mAh design capacity low: 13 mAh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mAh capacity granularity 2: 1 mAh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Once the laptop switches the unit to mWh (unplug from mains, suspend, resume), the output changes to: present: yes design capacity: 28860 mWh last full capacity: 29090 mWh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 1454 mWh design capacity low: 200 mWh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mWh capacity granularity 2: 1 mWh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Can you see how the values for "design capacity", etc., differ by a factor of 10 instead of 14.8 (the design voltage of this battery)? On the battery itself it says: 14.8V, 1.95Ah, 29Wh, so clearly the values reported in mWh are correct and the ones in mAh are not. My guess is that this problem has been around ever since those machines were released, but because the most common Thinkpad batteries are rated at 10.8V, the error (8%) is small enough that it simply hasn't been noticed or at least nobody could be bothered to look into it. My patch works around the problem by adjusting the incorrectly reported mAh values by "10000 / design_voltage". The patch also has code to figure out if it should be activated or not. It only activates on Lenovo Thinkpads, only when the unit is mAh, and, as an extra precaution, only when the battery capacity reported through ACPI does not match what is reported through DMI (I've never encountered a machine where the first two conditions would be true but the last would not, but better safe than sorry). I've been using this patch for close to a year on several systems without any problems. References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41062 Acked-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2012-11-16 22:28:58 +01:00
ACPI / battery: Correct battery capacity values on Thinkpads Add a quirk to correctly report battery capacity on 2010 and 2011 Lenovo Thinkpad models. The affected models that I tested (x201, t410, t410s, and x220) exhibit a problem where, when battery capacity reporting unit is mAh, the values being reported are wrong. Pre-2010 and 2012 models appear to always report in mWh and are thus unaffected. Also, in mid-2012 Lenovo issued a BIOS update for the 2011 models that fixes the issue (tested on x220 with a post-1.29 BIOS). No such update is available for the 2010 models, so those still need this patch. Problem description: for some reason, the affected Thinkpads switch the reporting unit between mAh and mWh; generally, mAh is used when a laptop is plugged in and mWh when it's unplugged, although a suspend/resume or rmmod/modprobe is needed for the switch to take effect. The values reported in mAh are *always* wrong. This does not appear to be a kernel regression; I believe that the values were never reported correctly. I tested back to kernel 2.6.34, with multiple machines and BIOS versions. Simply plugging a laptop into mains before turning it on is enough to reproduce the problem. Here's a sample /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/info from Thinkpad x220 (before a BIOS update) with a 4-cell battery: present: yes design capacity: 2886 mAh last full capacity: 2909 mAh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 145 mAh design capacity low: 13 mAh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mAh capacity granularity 2: 1 mAh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Once the laptop switches the unit to mWh (unplug from mains, suspend, resume), the output changes to: present: yes design capacity: 28860 mWh last full capacity: 29090 mWh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 1454 mWh design capacity low: 200 mWh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mWh capacity granularity 2: 1 mWh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Can you see how the values for "design capacity", etc., differ by a factor of 10 instead of 14.8 (the design voltage of this battery)? On the battery itself it says: 14.8V, 1.95Ah, 29Wh, so clearly the values reported in mWh are correct and the ones in mAh are not. My guess is that this problem has been around ever since those machines were released, but because the most common Thinkpad batteries are rated at 10.8V, the error (8%) is small enough that it simply hasn't been noticed or at least nobody could be bothered to look into it. My patch works around the problem by adjusting the incorrectly reported mAh values by "10000 / design_voltage". The patch also has code to figure out if it should be activated or not. It only activates on Lenovo Thinkpads, only when the unit is mAh, and, as an extra precaution, only when the battery capacity reported through ACPI does not match what is reported through DMI (I've never encountered a machine where the first two conditions would be true but the last would not, but better safe than sorry). I've been using this patch for close to a year on several systems without any problems. References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41062 Acked-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2012-11-16 22:28:58 +01:00
Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking Commit 9c921c22a7f33397a6774d7fa076db9b6a0fd669 Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery() fixed BUG https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35642 , but as a side effect made lockdep unhappy with sysfs_remove_battery(): [14818.477168] [14818.477170] ======================================================= [14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.477236] ------------------------------------------------------- [14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock: [14818.477276] (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.477323] [14818.477325] but task is already holding lock: [14818.477350] (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery] [14818.477395] [14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock. [14818.477399] [..] [14818.479121] stack backtrace: [14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.479175] Call Trace: [14818.479198] [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4 [14818.479228] [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b [14818.479260] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479288] [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac [14818.479316] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479345] [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec [14818.479373] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479405] [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479433] [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77 [14818.479461] [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479488] [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479516] [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c [14818.479542] [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a [14818.479570] [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27 [14818.479601] [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery] [14818.479632] [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery] [14818.479662] [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1 [14818.479692] [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89 [14818.479722] [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 [14818.479751] [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27 [14818.479770] [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5 [14818.479782] [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0 [14818.479795] [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45 [14818.479807] [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19 [14818.479820] [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f [14818.479834] [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d [14818.479847] [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c [14818.479860] [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b This patch introduces separate lock to struct acpi_battery to grab in sysfs_remove_battery() instead of battery->lock. So fix by Lan Tianyu is still there, we just grab independent lock. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
2011-08-06 01:34:08 +03:00
ACPI / battery: Correct battery capacity values on Thinkpads Add a quirk to correctly report battery capacity on 2010 and 2011 Lenovo Thinkpad models. The affected models that I tested (x201, t410, t410s, and x220) exhibit a problem where, when battery capacity reporting unit is mAh, the values being reported are wrong. Pre-2010 and 2012 models appear to always report in mWh and are thus unaffected. Also, in mid-2012 Lenovo issued a BIOS update for the 2011 models that fixes the issue (tested on x220 with a post-1.29 BIOS). No such update is available for the 2010 models, so those still need this patch. Problem description: for some reason, the affected Thinkpads switch the reporting unit between mAh and mWh; generally, mAh is used when a laptop is plugged in and mWh when it's unplugged, although a suspend/resume or rmmod/modprobe is needed for the switch to take effect. The values reported in mAh are *always* wrong. This does not appear to be a kernel regression; I believe that the values were never reported correctly. I tested back to kernel 2.6.34, with multiple machines and BIOS versions. Simply plugging a laptop into mains before turning it on is enough to reproduce the problem. Here's a sample /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/info from Thinkpad x220 (before a BIOS update) with a 4-cell battery: present: yes design capacity: 2886 mAh last full capacity: 2909 mAh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 145 mAh design capacity low: 13 mAh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mAh capacity granularity 2: 1 mAh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Once the laptop switches the unit to mWh (unplug from mains, suspend, resume), the output changes to: present: yes design capacity: 28860 mWh last full capacity: 29090 mWh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 1454 mWh design capacity low: 200 mWh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mWh capacity granularity 2: 1 mWh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Can you see how the values for "design capacity", etc., differ by a factor of 10 instead of 14.8 (the design voltage of this battery)? On the battery itself it says: 14.8V, 1.95Ah, 29Wh, so clearly the values reported in mWh are correct and the ones in mAh are not. My guess is that this problem has been around ever since those machines were released, but because the most common Thinkpad batteries are rated at 10.8V, the error (8%) is small enough that it simply hasn't been noticed or at least nobody could be bothered to look into it. My patch works around the problem by adjusting the incorrectly reported mAh values by "10000 / design_voltage". The patch also has code to figure out if it should be activated or not. It only activates on Lenovo Thinkpads, only when the unit is mAh, and, as an extra precaution, only when the battery capacity reported through ACPI does not match what is reported through DMI (I've never encountered a machine where the first two conditions would be true but the last would not, but better safe than sorry). I've been using this patch for close to a year on several systems without any problems. References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41062 Acked-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2012-11-16 22:28:58 +01:00
ACPI / battery: Correct battery capacity values on Thinkpads Add a quirk to correctly report battery capacity on 2010 and 2011 Lenovo Thinkpad models. The affected models that I tested (x201, t410, t410s, and x220) exhibit a problem where, when battery capacity reporting unit is mAh, the values being reported are wrong. Pre-2010 and 2012 models appear to always report in mWh and are thus unaffected. Also, in mid-2012 Lenovo issued a BIOS update for the 2011 models that fixes the issue (tested on x220 with a post-1.29 BIOS). No such update is available for the 2010 models, so those still need this patch. Problem description: for some reason, the affected Thinkpads switch the reporting unit between mAh and mWh; generally, mAh is used when a laptop is plugged in and mWh when it's unplugged, although a suspend/resume or rmmod/modprobe is needed for the switch to take effect. The values reported in mAh are *always* wrong. This does not appear to be a kernel regression; I believe that the values were never reported correctly. I tested back to kernel 2.6.34, with multiple machines and BIOS versions. Simply plugging a laptop into mains before turning it on is enough to reproduce the problem. Here's a sample /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/info from Thinkpad x220 (before a BIOS update) with a 4-cell battery: present: yes design capacity: 2886 mAh last full capacity: 2909 mAh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 145 mAh design capacity low: 13 mAh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mAh capacity granularity 2: 1 mAh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Once the laptop switches the unit to mWh (unplug from mains, suspend, resume), the output changes to: present: yes design capacity: 28860 mWh last full capacity: 29090 mWh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 1454 mWh design capacity low: 200 mWh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mWh capacity granularity 2: 1 mWh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Can you see how the values for "design capacity", etc., differ by a factor of 10 instead of 14.8 (the design voltage of this battery)? On the battery itself it says: 14.8V, 1.95Ah, 29Wh, so clearly the values reported in mWh are correct and the ones in mAh are not. My guess is that this problem has been around ever since those machines were released, but because the most common Thinkpad batteries are rated at 10.8V, the error (8%) is small enough that it simply hasn't been noticed or at least nobody could be bothered to look into it. My patch works around the problem by adjusting the incorrectly reported mAh values by "10000 / design_voltage". The patch also has code to figure out if it should be activated or not. It only activates on Lenovo Thinkpads, only when the unit is mAh, and, as an extra precaution, only when the battery capacity reported through ACPI does not match what is reported through DMI (I've never encountered a machine where the first two conditions would be true but the last would not, but better safe than sorry). I've been using this patch for close to a year on several systems without any problems. References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41062 Acked-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2012-11-16 22:28:58 +01:00
Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking Commit 9c921c22a7f33397a6774d7fa076db9b6a0fd669 Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery() fixed BUG https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35642 , but as a side effect made lockdep unhappy with sysfs_remove_battery(): [14818.477168] [14818.477170] ======================================================= [14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.477236] ------------------------------------------------------- [14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock: [14818.477276] (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.477323] [14818.477325] but task is already holding lock: [14818.477350] (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery] [14818.477395] [14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock. [14818.477399] [..] [14818.479121] stack backtrace: [14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.479175] Call Trace: [14818.479198] [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4 [14818.479228] [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b [14818.479260] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479288] [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac [14818.479316] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479345] [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec [14818.479373] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479405] [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479433] [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77 [14818.479461] [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479488] [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479516] [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c [14818.479542] [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a [14818.479570] [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27 [14818.479601] [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery] [14818.479632] [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery] [14818.479662] [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1 [14818.479692] [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89 [14818.479722] [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 [14818.479751] [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27 [14818.479770] [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5 [14818.479782] [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0 [14818.479795] [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45 [14818.479807] [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19 [14818.479820] [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f [14818.479834] [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d [14818.479847] [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c [14818.479860] [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b This patch introduces separate lock to struct acpi_battery to grab in sysfs_remove_battery() instead of battery->lock. So fix by Lan Tianyu is still there, we just grab independent lock. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
2011-08-06 01:34:08 +03:00
Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking Commit 9c921c22a7f33397a6774d7fa076db9b6a0fd669 Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery() fixed BUG https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35642 , but as a side effect made lockdep unhappy with sysfs_remove_battery(): [14818.477168] [14818.477170] ======================================================= [14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.477236] ------------------------------------------------------- [14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock: [14818.477276] (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.477323] [14818.477325] but task is already holding lock: [14818.477350] (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery] [14818.477395] [14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock. [14818.477399] [..] [14818.479121] stack backtrace: [14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.479175] Call Trace: [14818.479198] [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4 [14818.479228] [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b [14818.479260] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479288] [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac [14818.479316] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479345] [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec [14818.479373] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479405] [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479433] [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77 [14818.479461] [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479488] [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479516] [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c [14818.479542] [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a [14818.479570] [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27 [14818.479601] [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery] [14818.479632] [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery] [14818.479662] [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1 [14818.479692] [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89 [14818.479722] [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 [14818.479751] [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27 [14818.479770] [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5 [14818.479782] [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0 [14818.479795] [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45 [14818.479807] [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19 [14818.479820] [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f [14818.479834] [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d [14818.479847] [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c [14818.479860] [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b This patch introduces separate lock to struct acpi_battery to grab in sysfs_remove_battery() instead of battery->lock. So fix by Lan Tianyu is still there, we just grab independent lock. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
2011-08-06 01:34:08 +03:00
Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking Commit 9c921c22a7f33397a6774d7fa076db9b6a0fd669 Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery() fixed BUG https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35642 , but as a side effect made lockdep unhappy with sysfs_remove_battery(): [14818.477168] [14818.477170] ======================================================= [14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.477236] ------------------------------------------------------- [14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock: [14818.477276] (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.477323] [14818.477325] but task is already holding lock: [14818.477350] (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery] [14818.477395] [14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock. [14818.477399] [..] [14818.479121] stack backtrace: [14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.479175] Call Trace: [14818.479198] [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4 [14818.479228] [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b [14818.479260] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479288] [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac [14818.479316] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479345] [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec [14818.479373] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479405] [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479433] [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77 [14818.479461] [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479488] [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479516] [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c [14818.479542] [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a [14818.479570] [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27 [14818.479601] [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery] [14818.479632] [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery] [14818.479662] [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1 [14818.479692] [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89 [14818.479722] [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 [14818.479751] [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27 [14818.479770] [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5 [14818.479782] [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0 [14818.479795] [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45 [14818.479807] [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19 [14818.479820] [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f [14818.479834] [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d [14818.479847] [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c [14818.479860] [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b This patch introduces separate lock to struct acpi_battery to grab in sysfs_remove_battery() instead of battery->lock. So fix by Lan Tianyu is still there, we just grab independent lock. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
2011-08-06 01:34:08 +03:00
ACPI / battery: Correct battery capacity values on Thinkpads Add a quirk to correctly report battery capacity on 2010 and 2011 Lenovo Thinkpad models. The affected models that I tested (x201, t410, t410s, and x220) exhibit a problem where, when battery capacity reporting unit is mAh, the values being reported are wrong. Pre-2010 and 2012 models appear to always report in mWh and are thus unaffected. Also, in mid-2012 Lenovo issued a BIOS update for the 2011 models that fixes the issue (tested on x220 with a post-1.29 BIOS). No such update is available for the 2010 models, so those still need this patch. Problem description: for some reason, the affected Thinkpads switch the reporting unit between mAh and mWh; generally, mAh is used when a laptop is plugged in and mWh when it's unplugged, although a suspend/resume or rmmod/modprobe is needed for the switch to take effect. The values reported in mAh are *always* wrong. This does not appear to be a kernel regression; I believe that the values were never reported correctly. I tested back to kernel 2.6.34, with multiple machines and BIOS versions. Simply plugging a laptop into mains before turning it on is enough to reproduce the problem. Here's a sample /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/info from Thinkpad x220 (before a BIOS update) with a 4-cell battery: present: yes design capacity: 2886 mAh last full capacity: 2909 mAh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 145 mAh design capacity low: 13 mAh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mAh capacity granularity 2: 1 mAh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Once the laptop switches the unit to mWh (unplug from mains, suspend, resume), the output changes to: present: yes design capacity: 28860 mWh last full capacity: 29090 mWh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 1454 mWh design capacity low: 200 mWh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mWh capacity granularity 2: 1 mWh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Can you see how the values for "design capacity", etc., differ by a factor of 10 instead of 14.8 (the design voltage of this battery)? On the battery itself it says: 14.8V, 1.95Ah, 29Wh, so clearly the values reported in mWh are correct and the ones in mAh are not. My guess is that this problem has been around ever since those machines were released, but because the most common Thinkpad batteries are rated at 10.8V, the error (8%) is small enough that it simply hasn't been noticed or at least nobody could be bothered to look into it. My patch works around the problem by adjusting the incorrectly reported mAh values by "10000 / design_voltage". The patch also has code to figure out if it should be activated or not. It only activates on Lenovo Thinkpads, only when the unit is mAh, and, as an extra precaution, only when the battery capacity reported through ACPI does not match what is reported through DMI (I've never encountered a machine where the first two conditions would be true but the last would not, but better safe than sorry). I've been using this patch for close to a year on several systems without any problems. References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41062 Acked-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2012-11-16 22:28:58 +01:00
ACPI / battery: Correct battery capacity values on Thinkpads Add a quirk to correctly report battery capacity on 2010 and 2011 Lenovo Thinkpad models. The affected models that I tested (x201, t410, t410s, and x220) exhibit a problem where, when battery capacity reporting unit is mAh, the values being reported are wrong. Pre-2010 and 2012 models appear to always report in mWh and are thus unaffected. Also, in mid-2012 Lenovo issued a BIOS update for the 2011 models that fixes the issue (tested on x220 with a post-1.29 BIOS). No such update is available for the 2010 models, so those still need this patch. Problem description: for some reason, the affected Thinkpads switch the reporting unit between mAh and mWh; generally, mAh is used when a laptop is plugged in and mWh when it's unplugged, although a suspend/resume or rmmod/modprobe is needed for the switch to take effect. The values reported in mAh are *always* wrong. This does not appear to be a kernel regression; I believe that the values were never reported correctly. I tested back to kernel 2.6.34, with multiple machines and BIOS versions. Simply plugging a laptop into mains before turning it on is enough to reproduce the problem. Here's a sample /proc/acpi/battery/BAT0/info from Thinkpad x220 (before a BIOS update) with a 4-cell battery: present: yes design capacity: 2886 mAh last full capacity: 2909 mAh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 145 mAh design capacity low: 13 mAh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mAh capacity granularity 2: 1 mAh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Once the laptop switches the unit to mWh (unplug from mains, suspend, resume), the output changes to: present: yes design capacity: 28860 mWh last full capacity: 29090 mWh battery technology: rechargeable design voltage: 14800 mV design capacity warning: 1454 mWh design capacity low: 200 mWh cycle count: 0 capacity granularity 1: 1 mWh capacity granularity 2: 1 mWh model number: 42T4899 serial number: 21064 battery type: LION OEM info: SANYO Can you see how the values for "design capacity", etc., differ by a factor of 10 instead of 14.8 (the design voltage of this battery)? On the battery itself it says: 14.8V, 1.95Ah, 29Wh, so clearly the values reported in mWh are correct and the ones in mAh are not. My guess is that this problem has been around ever since those machines were released, but because the most common Thinkpad batteries are rated at 10.8V, the error (8%) is small enough that it simply hasn't been noticed or at least nobody could be bothered to look into it. My patch works around the problem by adjusting the incorrectly reported mAh values by "10000 / design_voltage". The patch also has code to figure out if it should be activated or not. It only activates on Lenovo Thinkpads, only when the unit is mAh, and, as an extra precaution, only when the battery capacity reported through ACPI does not match what is reported through DMI (I've never encountered a machine where the first two conditions would be true but the last would not, but better safe than sorry). I've been using this patch for close to a year on several systems without any problems. References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41062 Acked-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2012-11-16 22:28:58 +01:00
Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking Commit 9c921c22a7f33397a6774d7fa076db9b6a0fd669 Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery() fixed BUG https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35642 , but as a side effect made lockdep unhappy with sysfs_remove_battery(): [14818.477168] [14818.477170] ======================================================= [14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.477236] ------------------------------------------------------- [14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock: [14818.477276] (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.477323] [14818.477325] but task is already holding lock: [14818.477350] (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery] [14818.477395] [14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock. [14818.477399] [..] [14818.479121] stack backtrace: [14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.479175] Call Trace: [14818.479198] [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4 [14818.479228] [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b [14818.479260] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479288] [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac [14818.479316] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479345] [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec [14818.479373] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479405] [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479433] [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77 [14818.479461] [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479488] [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479516] [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c [14818.479542] [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a [14818.479570] [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27 [14818.479601] [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery] [14818.479632] [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery] [14818.479662] [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1 [14818.479692] [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89 [14818.479722] [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 [14818.479751] [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27 [14818.479770] [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5 [14818.479782] [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0 [14818.479795] [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45 [14818.479807] [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19 [14818.479820] [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f [14818.479834] [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d [14818.479847] [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c [14818.479860] [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b This patch introduces separate lock to struct acpi_battery to grab in sysfs_remove_battery() instead of battery->lock. So fix by Lan Tianyu is still there, we just grab independent lock. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
2011-08-06 01:34:08 +03:00
Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking Commit 9c921c22a7f33397a6774d7fa076db9b6a0fd669 Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery() fixed BUG https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35642 , but as a side effect made lockdep unhappy with sysfs_remove_battery(): [14818.477168] [14818.477170] ======================================================= [14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.477236] ------------------------------------------------------- [14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock: [14818.477276] (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.477323] [14818.477325] but task is already holding lock: [14818.477350] (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery] [14818.477395] [14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock. [14818.477399] [..] [14818.479121] stack backtrace: [14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.479175] Call Trace: [14818.479198] [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4 [14818.479228] [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b [14818.479260] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479288] [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac [14818.479316] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479345] [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec [14818.479373] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479405] [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479433] [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77 [14818.479461] [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479488] [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479516] [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c [14818.479542] [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a [14818.479570] [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27 [14818.479601] [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery] [14818.479632] [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery] [14818.479662] [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1 [14818.479692] [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89 [14818.479722] [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 [14818.479751] [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27 [14818.479770] [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5 [14818.479782] [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0 [14818.479795] [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45 [14818.479807] [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19 [14818.479820] [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f [14818.479834] [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d [14818.479847] [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c [14818.479860] [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b This patch introduces separate lock to struct acpi_battery to grab in sysfs_remove_battery() instead of battery->lock. So fix by Lan Tianyu is still there, we just grab independent lock. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
2011-08-06 01:34:08 +03:00
Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking Commit 9c921c22a7f33397a6774d7fa076db9b6a0fd669 Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery() fixed BUG https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35642 , but as a side effect made lockdep unhappy with sysfs_remove_battery(): [14818.477168] [14818.477170] ======================================================= [14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.477236] ------------------------------------------------------- [14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock: [14818.477276] (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.477323] [14818.477325] but task is already holding lock: [14818.477350] (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery] [14818.477395] [14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock. [14818.477399] [..] [14818.479121] stack backtrace: [14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668 [14818.479175] Call Trace: [14818.479198] [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4 [14818.479228] [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b [14818.479260] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479288] [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac [14818.479316] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479345] [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec [14818.479373] [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479405] [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a [14818.479433] [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77 [14818.479461] [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479488] [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14 [14818.479516] [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c [14818.479542] [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a [14818.479570] [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27 [14818.479601] [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery] [14818.479632] [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery] [14818.479662] [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1 [14818.479692] [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89 [14818.479722] [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11 [14818.479751] [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27 [14818.479770] [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5 [14818.479782] [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0 [14818.479795] [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45 [14818.479807] [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19 [14818.479820] [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f [14818.479834] [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d [14818.479847] [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c [14818.479860] [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b This patch introduces separate lock to struct acpi_battery to grab in sysfs_remove_battery() instead of battery->lock. So fix by Lan Tianyu is still there, we just grab independent lock. Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Tested-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
2011-08-06 01:34:08 +03:00