[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090115090120.GE4190@ff.dom.local>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:01:20 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Denys Fedoryschenko <denys@...p.net.lb>,
Chris Caputo <ccaputo@....net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Badalian Vyacheslav <slavon@...telecom.ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: deadlocks if use htb
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 03:28:03PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
...
> Right, found all that...
>
> Can't spot anything obviously wrong though.. hrtimer_start*() does
> remove_hrtimer() which checks STATE_ENQUEUED, STATE_PENDING and pulls it
> off the relevant list before it continues the enqueue.
>
> However a loop in enqueue_hrtimer() would suggest a corrupted RB-tree,
> but I cannot find an RB-op that doesn't hold base-lock.
>
I've revisited it yesterday, and if I don't miss something, there is
possible a scenario similar to this:
cpu1: cpu2:
run_hrtimer_pending
spin_unlock
restart = fn(timer)
hrtimer_start
enqueue_hrtimer
hrtimer_start
remove_hrtimer
(the HRTIMER_STATE_CALLBACK is removed)
switch_hrtimer_base
spin_lock
(not this hrtimer's anymore)
__remove_hrtimer
list_add_tail enqueue_hrtimer
Jarek P.
--
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