[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1347287780.2124.10.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:36:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.6-rc4
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Al? Please look into this. I'm not entirely sure what's going on, but
> lockdep complains about this:
>
> Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
> local_irq_disable();
> lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
> lock(tasklist_lock);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> and it looks real. IOW, if I read that right, we have the task_lock ->
> it_lock dependency through exit_itimers(), and then we have the
> tasklist_lock -> task_lock dependency everywhere else. So now it_lock
> -> tasklist_lock becomes a deadlock.
Agreed, I've got the following series from Oleg queued to solve this:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=134600821828491&w=2
--
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