[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803241021350.17905@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> As to the regression reported by Marcin; what happens is that we invoke
> printk() while holding the xtime lock for writing. printk() will call
> wake_up_klogd() which tries to enqueue klogd on some rq.
>
> The known deadlock here is calling printk() while holding rq->lock, which
> would then try to recusively lock the rq again when trying to wake klogd.
Ok.
Right now, however, I think that for 2.6.25 I'll just remove the printk.
And for the long haul, I really don't think the solution is
"printk_nowakup()", because this is going to happen again when somebody
doesn't realize the code is called with the rq lock held, and it's going
to be a bitch to debug.
I just don't think this is maintainable.
Linus
--
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