[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d82e647a0905200009pc894d4yed0f81c83443a0ee@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:09:20 +0800
From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency at
cleanup_workqueue_thread
2009/5/20 Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>:
> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 11:36 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> > Anyway, you can have a deadlock like this:
>> >
>> > CPU 3 CPU 2 CPU 1
>> > suspend/hibernate
>> > something:
>> > rtnl_lock() device_pm_lock()
>> > -> mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx)
>> >
>> > mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx)
>>
>> Would you give a explaination why mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx) runs in CPU2
>> and depends on rtnl_lock?
>
> Why not? Something is registering a hotplugged netdev.
I see. I just feel a bit curious how lockdep may build the dependency
of dpm_list_mtx on rtnl_lock, and it is certainly related with
lockdep internal.
--
Lei Ming
--
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