[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1157524765.29093.26.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:39:24 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Miles Lane <miles.lane@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- INFO: possible recursive
locking detected
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 10:37 -0700, Miles Lane wrote:
> ieee1394: Node changed: 0-01:1023 -> 0-00:1023
> ieee1394: Node changed: 0-02:1023 -> 0-01:1023
> ieee1394: Node suspended: ID:BUS[0-00:1023] GUID[0080880002103eae]
>
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 #2
> ---------------------------------------------
> knodemgrd_0/2321 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&s->rwsem){----}, at: [<f8958897>] nodemgr_probe_ne+0x311/0x38d [ieee1394]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&s->rwsem){----}, at: [<f8959078>] nodemgr_host_thread+0x717/0x883 [ieee1394]
looks like a real bug to me:
nodemgr_node_probe() takes down_read(&class->subsys.rwsem) and then
calls nodemgr_probe_ne() which calls nodemgr_update_pdrv() which does
down_read(&class->subsys.rwsem).
Such recursive taking of rwsems is not allowed (rwsems are fair, if a
write comes in in between then there is a deadlock).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists