[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFz2dKw5HXy7DV1Aymoscg0MW7Zz28apan8dugUeqTd1QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:43:52 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Hałasa <khalasa@...p.pl>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: v3.13-rc6+ regression (ARM board)
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 12:30 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> So something else may be at play. Even with Linus' patch I reproduced a
> similar hang here.
>
> Still chasing it down, but it looks like a seqlock deadlock where we're
> calling read while holding the lock.
Hmm. Only with lockdep, right?
Does lockdep perhaps read the scheduler clock? Afaik, we have
lockstat_clock(), which uses local_clock(), which in turn translates
to sched_clock_cpu(smp_processor_id())..
So if that code now tries to read the scheduler clock when
update_sched_clock() is doing a update and has done a
write_seqcount_begin()...
Linus
--
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