[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1301419214.14261.289.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:20:14 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] lockdep: Print a nice description of an irq
locking issue
On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 13:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> ---
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Chain exists of:
> &rq->lock --> lockA --> lockC
>
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(lockC);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(&rq->lock);
> lock(lockA);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(&rq->lock)
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
Note, the above output is real. To produce this output, I wrote a module
that created a "lockA", "lockB" and "lockC" and had the following:
spin_lock_irq(&lockA);
spin_lock(&lockB);
spin_unlock(&lockB);
spin_unlock_irq(&lockA);
spin_lock_irq(&lockB);
spin_lock(&lockC);
spin_unlock(&lockC);
spin_unlock_irq(&lockB);
spin_lock(&lockC);
spin_unlock(&lockC);
ret = register_trace_sched_switch(probe_switch, NULL);
static void
probe_switch(void *ignore, struct task_struct *p, struct task_struct *n)
{
unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(&lockA, flags);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&lockA, flags);
}
probe_switch is called via the trace_sched_switch() trace point that is
called with the rq lock held, producing the call chain that will trigger
lockdep to produce a dump.
-- 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