[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200905271733.42266.lkml@morethan.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:33:37 -0500
From: "Michael S. Zick" <lkml@...ethan.org>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG FIX] Make x86_32 uni-processor Atomic ops, Atomic
On Wed May 27 2009, Roland Dreier wrote:
>
> > The only objective information is posted here:
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/20/342
>
> Not sure if you've looked at this, but it's a lockdep trace that looks
> to be a valid lockdep report due to non-annotated code (I don't *think*
> it's a bug). To summarize, there is the code path in
> kernel/irq/spurious.c that does:
>
I haven't looked at it - beyond my skill level.
Still trying to deal with a machine where the only symptom is a deadlock.
So I post these for someone else's eyes until I figure out the deadlock.
Mike
> poll_spurious_irq_timer ->
> poll_spurious_irqs() [from timer, with hard IRQs on] ->
> poll_all_shared_irqs() [if we think an IRQ got stuck] ->
> try_one_irq() ->
> spin_lock(&desc->lock) [as above -- hard IRQs on]
>
> while kernel/irq/chip.c has:
>
> handle_level_irq() [called with hard IRQs off] ->
> spin_lock(&desc->lock) [as above -- hard IRQs off]
>
> and lockdep can't tell that the interrupt corresponding to desc has been
> disabled if we ever actually reach try_one_irq(), so there's no risk of
> the interrupt coming in and deadlocking while the try_one_irq() code
> holds desc->lock.
>
> Unfortunately I don't know how to annotate this...
>
>
--
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