Version: systemd-30-1.fc16.i686 This is what I get during boot: [ 120.029096] ============================================= [ 120.030018] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] [ 120.030018] 3.0.0-1.fc16.i686 #1 [ 120.030018] --------------------------------------------- [ 120.030018] systemd-logind/834 is trying to acquire lock: [ 120.030018] (&ep->mtx){+.+.+.}, at: [<c052a355>] ep_scan_ready_list+0x32/0x154 [ 120.030018] [ 120.030018] but task is already holding lock: [ 120.030018] (&ep->mtx){+.+.+.}, at: [<c052a7f4>] sys_epoll_ctl+0x103/0x481 [ 120.030018] [ 120.030018] other info that might help us debug this: [ 120.030018] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 120.030018] [ 120.030018] CPU0 [ 120.030018] ---- [ 120.030018] lock(&ep->mtx); [ 120.041434] lock(&ep->mtx); [ 120.041434] [ 120.041434] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 120.041434] [ 120.041434] May be due to missing lock nesting notation [ 120.041434] [ 120.041434] 2 locks held by systemd-logind/834: [ 120.041434] #0: (epmutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c052a7af>] sys_epoll_ctl+0xbe/0x481 [ 120.041434] #1: (&ep->mtx){+.+.+.}, at: [<c052a7f4>] sys_epoll_ctl+0x103/0x481 [ 120.041434] [ 120.041434] stack backtrace: [ 120.041434] Pid: 834, comm: systemd-logind Not tainted 3.0.0-1.fc16.i686 #1 [ 120.041434] Call Trace: [ 120.041434] Call Trace: [ 120.041434] [<c083331f>] ? printk+0x2d/0x2f [ 120.041434] [<c046b92f>] __lock_acquire+0x805/0xb57 [ 120.041434] [<c0407cc3>] ? sched_clock+0x8/0xb [ 120.060566] [<c045d7dc>] ? sched_clock_local+0x10/0x18b [ 120.060566] [<c052a355>] ? ep_scan_ready_list+0x32/0x154 [ 120.060566] [<c046c095>] lock_acquire+0xad/0xe4 [ 120.060566] [<c052a355>] ? ep_scan_ready_list+0x32/0x154 [ 120.060566] [<c083a7f5>] __mutex_lock_common+0x49/0x2ee [ 120.060566] [<c052a355>] ? ep_scan_ready_list+0x32/0x154 [ 120.060566] [<c046c318>] ? mark_held_locks+0x3b/0x57 [ 120.060566] [<c0433414>] ? __might_sleep+0x29/0xfb [ 120.060566] [<c046af5e>] ? mark_lock+0x26/0x1f2 [ 120.060566] [<c083abb4>] mutex_lock_nested+0x43/0x49 [ 120.060566] [<c052a355>] ? ep_scan_ready_list+0x32/0x154 [ 120.060566] [<c052a355>] ep_scan_ready_list+0x32/0x154 [ 120.060566] [<c0529f2f>] ? ep_remove+0x9b/0x9b [ 120.060566] [<c052a48b>] ep_poll_readyevents_proc+0x14/0x16 [ 120.060566] [<c052a13a>] ep_call_nested.constprop.2+0x6d/0x9a [ 120.060566] [<c052a477>] ? ep_scan_ready_list+0x154/0x154 [ 120.060566] [<c052a236>] ep_eventpoll_poll+0x45/0x55 [ 120.060566] [<c052a8f0>] sys_epoll_ctl+0x1ff/0x481 [ 120.060566] [<c052a05f>] ? ep_send_events_proc+0xd5/0xd5 [ 120.092049] [<c083c2e4>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb The issue is 100% reproducible. If you need more info, please let me know.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 722472 ***