[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200904062158.11245.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:58:10 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] pm-hibernate : possible circular locking dependency detected
On Monday 06 April 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> > > If I understand correctly it isn't really a deadlock scenario, but it
> > > is a lockdep violation. The violation is:
> > >
> > > The pci_device_probe() path 2) proves that dpm_list_mtx [4] can
> > > be acquired while cpu_hotplug.lock [3] is held;
> > >
> > > The hibernate() path 3) proves that cpu_hotplug.lock [3] can be
> > > acquired while dpm_list_mtx [4] is held.
> > >
> > > The two pathways cannot run simultaneously (and hence cannot deadlock)
> > > because the prepare() stage of hibernation is supposed to stop all
> > > device probing. But lockdep will still report a problem.
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying this Alan. I guess it boils down to teaching
> > lockdep about this false-positive.
>
> Or else changing the code somehow to avoid the violation completely.
> But I have no idea how... And AFAIK, teaching lockdep about special
> cases like this is not so easy to do.
Yeah, I've just wanted to ask about that. Peter, how can we do it?
Rafael
--
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