[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111103001721.GK5971@hostway.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 17:17:21 -0700
From: Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 08:15:51PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 17:09 -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> >
> > [ 49.032008] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 49.032008]
> > [ 49.032008] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [ 49.032008]
> > [ 49.032008] CPU0 CPU1
> > [ 49.032008] ---- ----
> > [ 49.032008] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> > [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET/1);
> > [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET);
> > [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET/1);
> > [ 49.039565]
> > [ 49.039565] *** DEADLOCK ***
> > [ 49.039565]
>
> > Did that help? I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to see...
>
>
> Yes, this looks much better than what you previously showed. The added
> "/1" makes a world of difference.
>
> Thanks!
>
> I'll add your "Tested-by". Seems rather strange as we didn't fix the bug
> you are chasing, but instead fixed the output of what the bug
> produced ;)
Well, I was testing this without Eric's patch as I figured you wanted to
see the splat. :) Testing again with Eric's patch now.
Simon-
--
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