[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1210142102300.2868@ionos>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:24:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [STABLE REQUEST] add: e1000: fix lockdep splat in shutdown
handler
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> commit 3a3847e007aae732d64d8fd1374126393e9879a3
> Author: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
> Date: Wed Jan 4 20:23:33 2012 +0000
>
> e1000: fix lockdep splat in shutdown handler
as I discussed with Jesse on IRC, there is another possible deadlock
lurking in the e1000 code.
static void e1000_reinit_safe(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
{
while (test_and_set_bit(__E1000_RESETTING, &adapter->flags))
msleep(1);
mutex_lock(&adapter->mutex);
e1000_down(adapter);
e1000_down() waits on the various work tasks to shut down, but those
work functions might be blocked on the adapter mutex.
I have no idea how I managed to trigger that one, but it's real. The
task dump I got out of the machine shows stuff waiting on each other
forever.
I can't give you a receipe to reprodruce. Looking at the code this is
not very surprising. It takes quite some coincidence of having
e1000_reinit_safe() being invoked and the delayed work timer bringing
the work on right after e1000_reinit_safe() took the adapter mutex.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists