[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D891C59.1030009@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:02:01 -0700
From: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
To: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Deadlock scenario in regulator core
Hi Liam and Mark,
I was analyzing the mutex lock usage in drivers/regulator/core.c and found
at least one way to reach deadlock: regulator_enable is called for a
regulator at the same time that regulator_disable is called for that
regulator's supply. Consider this simple example. There are two
regulators: S1 and L2, as well as two consumers: A and B. They are
connected as follows:
S1 --> L2 --> B
|
|--> A
Assume that A has already called regulator_enable for S1 some time in the
past.
Consumer A thread execution:
regulator_disable(S1)
mutex_lock(S1)
_regulator_disable(S1)
_notifier_call_chain(S1)
mutex_lock(L2)
Consumer B thread execution:
regulator_enable(L2)
mutex_lock(L2)
_regulator_enable(L2)
mutex_lock(S1)
The locks for S1 and L2 are taken in opposite orders in the two threads;
therefore, it is possible to achieve deadlock. I am not sure about the
best way to resolve this situation. Is there a correctness requirement
that regulator_enable holds the child regulator's lock when it attempts to
enable the parent regulator? Likewise, is the lock around
_notifier_call_chain required?
Thanks,
David Collins
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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