[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1193498921.5648.68.camel@lappy>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:28:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>
Cc: Gabriel C <nix.or.die@...glemail.com>, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: lock held when returning to user space
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 17:12 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Gabriel C wrote:
>
> > I found that today in dmesg after booting current git (
> > ec3b67c11df42362ccda81261d62829042f223f0 ) :
> > ...
> > [ 592.752777]
> > [ 592.752781] ================================================
> > [ 592.753478] [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
> > [ 592.753880] ------------------------------------------------
> > [ 592.754262] hwclock/1452 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
> > [ 592.754655] 1 lock held by hwclock/1452:
> > [ 592.755007] #0: (&rtc->char_lock){--..}, at: [<c02a7ebb>] rtc_dev_open+0x2e/0x7e
>
> Yes, this is because rtc keeps a char_lock mutex locked as long as the
> device is open, to avoid concurrent accessess.
>
> It could be easily substituted by some counting -- setting and clearing
> bit in struct rtc_device instead of using char_lock, but doing this just
> to shut the lockdep off is questionable imho.
>
> Peter, what is the preferred way to annotate these kinds of locking for
> lockdep to express that it is intended?
Not sure, I'd not thought that anyone would actually want to do this.
I'm also not sure how I stand on this, I'd prefer to say: don't do this!
I think, in this case, the lock is associated with a kernel object that
is properly cleaned up if the holding tasks gets a SIGKILL. But in
general I'd like to see this kind of thing go away.
Now I could probably come up with an annotation to hide it, but what do
other people think, Ingo, Linus, Andrew, do we want to keep kernel locks
held over userspace?
-
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