[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+1xoqcY5=Ru-pgSGux0rGEp8d2nOWFpqk3EW9j=Qt2N6=XECw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 14:25:51 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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
I'm still seeing lockdep warnings even with the code above applied.
--
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