[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1242803569.31350.14.camel@johannes.local>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:12:49 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
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
On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 15:09 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> 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.
No, it's just the way drivers/base/power/ works -- it acquires the lock
when you register a new struct device.
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists