[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080324143141.GA6019@joi>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:31:45 +0100
From: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 01:24:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> 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.
>
> The new deadlock is due to task enqueues setting an hrtimer, which requires
> reading the time, which will result in a live-lock when the printk() call-
> site is holding the xtime lock for writing.
>
> Thomas would like to preserve the printk() information if possible, hence my
> proposal of printk_nowakeup(). It will do everything printk() normally does,
> except ommit to wake up of klogd. The call is explicitly not EXPORTed so that
> its use is confined to core kernel code.
>
> Marcin, could you please test these two patches to confirm they do indeed
> solve your issue as well?
I've successfully tested these patches. Thanks.
Tested-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
Marcin
--
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