[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805171720310.14337@apollo.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 17:24:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 10701] New: snd_pcsp lockdep warning
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Fri, 16 May 2008 21:32:49 +0200 (CEST),
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > So the author was well aware of locking problem and the whole code is
> > > > just a stupid hack around the problem without solving it. This code is
> > > > not at all suited for HRTIMER_CB_IRQSAFE.
> > >
> > > You sound impressed! So what's the fix? HRTIMER_CB_SOFTIRQ?
> >
> > Yeah, impressed by creativity. HRTIMER_CB_SOFTIRQ should be the right
> > thing.
>
> Well, it'd be basically a similar way like snd-pcsp currently does ("a
> stupid hack" :) But, it's good to have a fix, anyway, since this
> sounds like a generic problem with a callback in a spinlock. If the
> callback requires another own lock, this can easily lead to a AB/BA
> deadlock. Actually, ALSA PCM core had sometimes similar problems,
> too.
HRTIMER_CB_SOFTIRQ is not a stupid hack :) It's the default for
hrtimers and it does not hold any locks when calling the callback. We
really want to avoid tons of callbacks in the timer interrupt itself.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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