[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170214161809.GQ6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:18:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regression in next with use printk_safe buffers in printk
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 01:01:40AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>
> but I'm a bit confused by rt_b->rt_runtime_lock in this unsafe lock
> scenario (so it's not ABBA, but ABAD)
>
> > lock(hrtimer_bases.lock);
> > lock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
> > lock(hrtimer_bases.lock);
> > lock(tk_core);
> >
> >
> > Chain exists of:
> >
> > tk_core --> &rt_b->rt_runtime_lock --> hrtimer_bases.lock
>
>
> I'm lacking some knowledge here, sorry. where does the tk_core --> &rt_b->rt_runtime_lock
> come from?
rt_b->rt_runtime_lock is one of the scheduler locks, since we do
printk() under tk_core, which does semaphore muck, which then includes
the entire scheduler chain of locks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists