[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070910130024.GA27939@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:00:24 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc5: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:11:29PM +0000, Christian Kujau wrote:
>
> after upgrading to 2.6.23-rc5 (and applying davem's fix [0]), lockdep
> was quite noisy when I tried to shape my external (wireless) interface:
>
> [ 6400.534545] FahCore_78.exe/3552 just changed the state of lock:
> [ 6400.534713] (&dev->ingress_lock){-+..}, at: [<c038d595>]
> netif_receive_skb+0x2d5/0x3c0
> [ 6400.534941] but this lock took another, soft-read-irq-unsafe lock in the
> past:
> [ 6400.535145] (police_lock){-.--}
This is a genuine dead-lock. The police lock can be taken
for reading with softirqs on. If a second CPU tries to take
the police lock for writing, while holding the ingress lock,
then a softirq on the first CPU can dead-lock when it tries
to get the ingress lock.
The minimal fix would be to make sure that we disable BH on
the first CPU. Jamal, could you take a look at this please?
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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