[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1341439576-1413-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:06:16 -0700
From: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: [PATCH] netdev/phy: Fixup lockdep warnings in mdio-mux.c
From: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
With lockdep enabled we get:
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
3.4.4-Cavium-Octeon+ #313 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
kworker/u:1/36 is trying to acquire lock:
(&bus->mdio_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff813da7e8>] mdio_mux_read+0x38/0xa0
but task is already holding lock:
(&bus->mdio_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff813d79e4>] mdiobus_read+0x44/0x88
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&bus->mdio_lock);
lock(&bus->mdio_lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
.
.
.
This is a false positive, since we are indeed using 'nested' locking,
we need to use mutex_lock_nested().
Now in theory we can stack multiple MDIO multiplexers, but that would
require passing the nesting level (which is difficult to know) to
mutex_lock_nested(). Instead we assume the simple case of a single
level of nesting. Since these are only warning messages, it isn't so
important to solve the general case.
Signed-off-by: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
---
drivers/net/phy/mdio-mux.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/mdio-mux.c b/drivers/net/phy/mdio-mux.c
index 39ea067..5c12018 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/mdio-mux.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/mdio-mux.c
@@ -46,7 +46,13 @@ static int mdio_mux_read(struct mii_bus *bus, int phy_id, int regnum)
struct mdio_mux_parent_bus *pb = cb->parent;
int r;
- mutex_lock(&pb->mii_bus->mdio_lock);
+ /* In theory multiple mdio_mux could be stacked, thus creating
+ * more than a single level of nesting. But in practice,
+ * SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING will cover the vast majority of use
+ * cases. We use it, instead of trying to handle the general
+ * case.
+ */
+ mutex_lock_nested(&pb->mii_bus->mdio_lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
r = pb->switch_fn(pb->current_child, cb->bus_number, pb->switch_data);
if (r)
goto out;
@@ -71,7 +77,7 @@ static int mdio_mux_write(struct mii_bus *bus, int phy_id,
int r;
- mutex_lock(&pb->mii_bus->mdio_lock);
+ mutex_lock_nested(&pb->mii_bus->mdio_lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
r = pb->switch_fn(pb->current_child, cb->bus_number, pb->switch_data);
if (r)
goto out;
--
1.7.2.3
--
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