[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1242828735.32543.1629.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:12:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency at
cleanup_workqueue_thread
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 15:55 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 15:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 05/20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Breaking the setup_lock -> cpu_add_remove_lock dependency seems
> > > > sufficient.
> > >
> > > Hmm. What do you mean? Afaics setup_lock -> cpu_add_remove_lock
> > > is not a problem?
> >
> > >From what I could see that is the only dependency that makes
> > cpu_add_remove_lock nest under "events" workqueue 'lock', which is what
> > is generating the deadlock.
>
> But cpu_add_remove_lock does not participate in this deadlock, see
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124274977707363 ?
>
> Perhaps you mean something else, could you spell in that case?
Ah, right, I knew I should have payed more attention when reading the
thread. Yes breaking that chain around dpm_list_mutex would also work,
and solve this other deadlock too.
--
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