[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140527145201.6e79230f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 14:52:01 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.14-rt] sched/numa: Fix task_numa_free() lockdep splat
On Tue, 27 May 2014 20:25:41 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Nope, its really IRQs.
>
> do_exit()
> exit_itimers()
> itimer_delete()
> spin_lock_irqsave(&timer->it_lock, &flags);
> timer_delete_hook(timer);
> kc->timer_del(timer) := posix_cpu_timer_del()
> put_task_struct()
> __put_task_struct()
> task_numa_free()
> spin_lock(&grp->lock);
>
> Which nests the grp->lock inside the timer->it_lock, and where the
> timer->it_lock is IRQ-safe, the grp->lock is not.
>
> This allows for IRQ deadlocks.
Ah crap. I did a search on all the callers of put_task_struct(), and
somehow missed this one. Yep, I was looking for places that called
this while holding other irq safe locks.
-- Steve
--
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