[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1310662929.27864.40.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:02:09 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 12:58 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> {
> struct task_struct *t = current;
>
> barrier(); /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
> --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> barrier(); /* decrement before load of ->rcu_read_unlock_special */
> if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
>
> Thus the question is, how did we get rcu_read_unlock_special set here?
Looks like another process could set this with:
static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
{
[...]
t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
t->rcu_read_unlock_special |= RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED;
-- 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