[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061129084428.GC1001@ff.dom.local>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:44:28 +0100
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org, mingo@...e.hu,
gandalf@...g.westbo.se
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: fix sk->sk_callback_lock locking
On 29-11-2006 08:49, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>> =========================================================
>> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.19-rc6 #4
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> nc/1854 just changed the state of lock:
>> (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family#2){-.-?}, at: [<c0268a7f>] sock_def_error_report+0x1f/0x90
>> but this lock was taken by another, soft-irq-safe lock in the past:
>> (slock-AF_INET){-+..}
>>
>> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
> I think this is bogus. The slock is not a standard lock. When we
> hold it in process context we don't actually hold the spin lock part
> of it. However, it does prevent the softirq path from running in
> critical sections which also prevents any attempt to grab the
> callback lock from softirq context.
>
> If you still think there is a problem, please show an actual scenario
> where it dead locks.
It would be nice to have a look at other parts of stack
backtraces probably with softirq part, which took that
lock: sk->sk_family#2){-.-?}
Jarek P.
-
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