[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1708031330570.30597@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 13:34:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: "Coelho, Luciano" <luciano.coelho@...el.com>
cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxwifi <linuxwifi@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"edubezval@...il.com" <edubezval@...il.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Weinehall, David" <david.weinehall@...el.com>,
"Berg, Johannes" <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
"kvalo@...eaurora.org" <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
"Sharon, Sara" <sara.sharon@...el.com>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"Grumbach, Emmanuel" <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [linuxwifi] x86/thermal: AB-BA dependency between mvm->mutex
and tz->lock
On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Coelho, Luciano wrote:
> Okay, so as I understand it the problem has been there for a long time,
> but the splat is only coming up now because of Thomas' patch that adds
> the lockdep map[1], right?
Yeah, sorry, forgot to mention that pre-49dfe2a67797 kernels wouldn't
produce this, as there would not be aware of the fact that
cpus_read_lock() is actually semantically a lock.
> I see the workqueue allocation you mentioned. I'll try to move this
> allocation out of the mutex and see how it goes.
I have been briefly looking into this as well -- it'll basically have to
be moved out of the trans_pcie->mutex context, but
(a) I'm not sure whether that's actually safe
(b) iwl_pcie_rx_reuse_rbd() (which is where corresponding work is being
queued) is not a proper context either (it's atomic context)
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists