[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080327.040334.25440988.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jarkao2@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
marcus@...ter.se, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10326] New: inconsistent lock state in
net_rx_action
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:56:19 +0100
> How about this:
>
> <irqs disabled>
>
> netpoll_poll()
> poll_napi()
> spin_trylock(&napi->poll_lock)
> poll_one_napi()
> napi->poll() := sky2_poll()
> napi_complete()
> local_irq_disable()
> local_irq_enable() <--- *BUG*
>
> <irq>
> irq_exit()
> do_softirq()
> net_rx_action()
> spin_lock(&napi->poll_lock) <--- Deadlock!
>
> Because we still hold the lock....
Yep, that will deadlock.
Can some test if using local_irq_{save,restore}() in
napi_complete() cures this lockdep warning?
Thanks.
--
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