[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130131001339.GC14801@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:13:40 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>,
"linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: circular locking dependency detected
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:04:05AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> So... what you seem to be telling me is that 3.9 is going to be a
> >> release which issues lockdep complaints when the console blanks, and
> >> you think that's acceptable?
> >>
> >> Adding Linus and Andrew so they're aware of this issue...
> >
> > Oh, we're extremely aware of it. And it's not a new issue, the locking
> > problem have apparently been around forever, although I'm not sure why
> > the lockdep splat itself started happening only recently.
> >
> > They'll make it into 3.9, it's 3.8 that won't have them. The patches
> > initially caused way *worse* behavior than just a lockdep splat - they
> > caused actual hard lockups (and that was *after* the initial series of
> > fixes). That got fixed (hopefully for the last case!) fairly recently,
> > and I'm not willing to take the scary patch-series that has had
> > several problem cases.
>
> Well we didn't have any lock validation support before Daniel added it
> a couple of kernels back,
> so instead of hidden locking problems we've had from time began, we now have
> lockdep detectable locking problems.
Which may or may not be a good thing depending how you look at it; it
means that once your kernel blanks, you get a lockdep dump. At that
point you lose lockdep checking for everything else because lockdep
disables itself after the first dump.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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