[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1162220239.2948.27.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:57:19 +0100
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Mark Lord <liml@....ca>,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc3-git7: scsi_device_unbusy: inconsistent lock state
> which has always been considered safe, while not very pretty.
actually it's different I think (based on a brief inspection of the
code, I could well be wrong):
get_request_wait() causes a get_request() call with a GFP_NOIO gfp_mask
which perculates upto cfq_set_request() as argument.
cfq_set_request() then calls the inline cfq_get_queue() (which isn't in
the backtrace due to inlining) which does
} else if (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) {
/*
* Inform the allocator of the fact that we will
* just repeat this allocation if it fails, to allow
* the allocator to do whatever it needs to attempt to
* free memory.
*/
spin_unlock_irq(cfqd->queue->queue_lock);
which enables interrupts right smack in the middle of holding a whole
bunch of locks.....
so to me it looks like lockdep at least has the appearance of moaning
about a reasonably fishy situation...
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
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