Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:46:02 +0200
From:      Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Tom Lislegaard <Tom.Lislegaard@proact.no>
Cc:        freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: AcpiOsAcquireObject crash [Was: 9-Stable panic: resource_list_unreserve: can't find resource]
Message-ID:  <509D091A.8080108@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F2092347A@Semail03.proact.local>
References:  <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F2091F824@Semail03.proact.local> <509172F6.2040400@FreeBSD.org> <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F2091FC33@Semail03.proact.local> <5092F209.7090803@FreeBSD.org> <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F20920DD1@Semail03.proact <5093BECC.1030709@FreeBSD.org> <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F20921BAC@Semail03.proact.local> <50979BCD.3060000@FreeBSD.org> <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F20921C47@Semail03.proact.local> <5097CB27.8040802@FreeBSD.org> <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F20921C6A@Semail03.proact.local> <5097F24D.7040206@FreeBSD.org> <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F209220E2@Semail03.proact.local> <50995C8F.3040309@FreeBSD.org> <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F20922E13@Semail03.proact.local> <509B8F15.4030300@FreeBSD.org> <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F20922F57@Semail03.proact.local> <509BDF86.3080502@FreeBSD.org> <E8A24BEFDC390C4491718DEE8A9C4F2092347A@Semail03.proact.local>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 09/11/2012 14:17 Tom Lislegaard said the following:
> kgdb) up 7
> #7  0xffffffff802d1bdd in AcpiOsAcquireObject (Cache=0xfffffe00052bac60) at /usr/src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/utilities/utcache.c:316
> 316	        ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT ((ACPI_DB_EXEC,
> (kgdb) x/9a Cache->ListHead
> 0xfffffffeec85c730:	Cannot access memory at address 0xfffffffeec85c730

[Slaps forehead] Ah, right, indeed.
I guess the problem hasn't happened again since then?
Does the patch appear to work OK so far (with respect to the original problem)?

I have a suspicion about what causes the new problem.
If it is correct then the following experimental patch may help with it:

--- a/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/components/utilities/utdelete.c
+++ b/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/components/utilities/utdelete.c
@@ -415,6 +415,8 @@ AcpiUtUpdateRefCount (
         return;
     }

+    (void) AcpiUtAcquireMutex (ACPI_MTX_REFCOUNTS);
+
     Count = Object->Common.ReferenceCount;
     NewCount = Count;

@@ -490,6 +492,8 @@ AcpiUtUpdateRefCount (
         ACPI_WARNING ((AE_INFO,
             "Large Reference Count (0x%X) in object %p", Count, Object));
     }
+
+    (void) AcpiUtReleaseMutex (ACPI_MTX_REFCOUNTS);
 }



--- a/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/include/aclocal.h
+++ b/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/include/aclocal.h
@@ -89,8 +89,9 @@ union acpi_parse_object;
 #define ACPI_MTX_MEMORY                 5   /* Debug memory tracking lists */
 #define ACPI_MTX_DEBUG_CMD_COMPLETE     6   /* AML debugger */
 #define ACPI_MTX_DEBUG_CMD_READY        7   /* AML debugger */
+#define ACPI_MTX_REFCOUNTS              8   /* ACPI object reference counts */

-#define ACPI_MAX_MUTEX                  7
+#define ACPI_MAX_MUTEX                  8
 #define ACPI_NUM_MUTEX                  ACPI_MAX_MUTEX+1



-- 
Andriy Gapon



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?509D091A.8080108>