[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 11:19:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [RT] Lockdep warning on boot with 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009, Ming Lei wrote:
> > The ordering requirement is: Don't try to acquire a device's lock if
> > you already hold the lock for a non-ancestor device. More generally
> > (if more obscurely): If you already hold device A's lock, then don't
> > try to acquire the lock for device B unless you already hold the lock
> > for A & B's most recent common ancestor.
> >
>
> It seems that the following case is very common, and A and B have no
> common ancestor, but we can hold device A and B's lock at the same
> time, can't we?
>
> Thanks.
>
> device A comes in one bus:
> device_add()
> ->bus_attach_device()
> ->device_attach():drivers/base/dd.c /*holding device A's lock*/
> ->...drv->probe() /*sleep here some time*/
So right now thread 1 is sleeping.
> then device B comes in another bus:
So all this must happen in a different thread, thread 2:
> device_add()
> ->bus_attach_device()
> ->device_attach():drivers/base/dd.c /*holding device B's lock*/
> ->...drv->probe() /*sleep here some time*/
At this point, thread 1 holds A's lock and thread 2 holds B's lock.
Neither thread holds both locks.
Alan Stern
--
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