[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110322223702.GO14675@home.goodmis.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:37:02 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Deadlock scenario in regulator core
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 03:02:01PM -0700, David Collins wrote:
> 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?
I'm curious, if you had enabled lockdep, do you get a warning? If not,
why not?
Thanks,
-- Steve
--
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