======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.10.0 #2 Tainted: G O
-------------------------------------------------------
sh/1271 is trying to acquire lock:
(console_lock){+.+.+.}, at: console_cpu_notify+0x20/0x2c
but task is already holding lock:
(cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: cpu_hotplug_begin+0x2c/0x58
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}:
lock_acquire+0x98/0x12c
mutex_lock_nested+0x50/0x3d8
cpu_hotplug_begin+0x2c/0x58
_cpu_up+0x24/0x154
cpu_up+0x64/0x84
smp_init+0x9c/0xd4
kernel_init_freeable+0x78/0x1c8
kernel_init+0x8/0xe4
ret_from_fork+0x14/0x2c
There are three locks involved in two sequence:
a) pm suspend:
console_lock (@suspend_console())
cpu_add_remove_lock (@disable_nonboot_cpus())
cpu_hotplug.lock (@_cpu_down())
b) Plug-out CPUx:
cpu_add_remove_lock (@(cpu_down())
cpu_hotplug.lock (@_cpu_down())
console_lock (@console_cpu_notify()) => Lockdeps prints warning log.
There should be not real deadlock, as flag of console_suspended can
protect this.
Although console_suspend() releases console_sem, it doesn't tell lockdep
about it. That results in the lockdep warning about circular locking
when doing the following: enter suspend -> resume -> plug-out CPUx (echo
0 > cpux/online)
Fix the problem by telling lockdep we actually released the semaphore in
console_suspend() and acquired it again in console_resume().
Signed-off-by: Jane Li <jiel@marvell.com> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>