[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1403185201.1225.10.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:40:01 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: roy.qing.li@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, greearb@...delatech.com,
leedom@...lsio.com, hariprasad@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cxgb4: disable BH when hold the adap_rcu_lock lock
On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 17:06 +0800, roy.qing.li@...il.com wrote:
> From: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@...il.com>
>
> This lock is used in BH enabled condition and softirq context, so need to
> disable BH to avoid the dead lock:
> =================================
> [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> 3.14.7+ #24 Tainted: G C O
> ---------------------------------
> inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage.
> radvd/3794 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE1:SE0] takes:
> (adap_rcu_lock){+.?...}, at: [<ffffffffa09989ea>] clip_add+0x2c/0x116 [cxgb4]
> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> [<ffffffff810fca81>] __lock_acquire+0x34a/0xe48
> [<ffffffff810fd98b>] lock_acquire+0x82/0x9d
> [<ffffffff815d6ff8>] _raw_spin_lock+0x34/0x43
> [<ffffffffa09989ea>] clip_add+0x2c/0x116 [cxgb4]
> [<ffffffffa0998beb>] cxgb4_inet6addr_handler+0x117/0x12c [cxgb4]
> [<ffffffff815da98b>] notifier_call_chain+0x32/0x5c
> [<ffffffff815da9f9>] __atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x6e
> [<ffffffff815daa32>] atomic_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> [<ffffffff815b1356>] inet6addr_notifier_call_chain+0x16/0x18
> [<ffffffffa01f72e5>] ipv6_add_addr+0x404/0x46e [ipv6]
> [<ffffffffa01f8df0>] addrconf_add_linklocal+0x5f/0x95 [ipv6]
> [<ffffffffa01fc3e9>] addrconf_notify+0x632/0x841 [ipv6]
> [<ffffffff815da98b>] notifier_call_chain+0x32/0x5c
> [<ffffffff810e09a1>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x9/0xb
> [<ffffffff810e09b2>] raw_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
> [<ffffffff8151b3b7>] call_netdevice_notifiers_info+0x4e/0x56
> [<ffffffff8151b3d0>] call_netdevice_notifiers+0x11/0x13
> [<ffffffff8151c0a6>] netdev_state_change+0x1f/0x38
> [<ffffffff8152f004>] linkwatch_do_dev+0x3b/0x49
> [<ffffffff8152f184>] __linkwatch_run_queue+0x10b/0x144
> [<ffffffff8152f1dd>] linkwatch_event+0x20/0x27
> [<ffffffff810d7bc0>] process_one_work+0x1cb/0x2ee
> [<ffffffff810d7e3b>] worker_thread+0x12e/0x1fc
> [<ffffffff810dd391>] kthread+0xc4/0xcc
> [<ffffffff815dc48c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> irq event stamp: 3388
> hardirqs last enabled at (3388): [<ffffffff810c6c85>] __local_bh_enable_ip+0xaa/0xd9
> hardirqs last disabled at (3387): [<ffffffff810c6c2d>] __local_bh_enable_ip+0x52/0xd9
> softirqs last enabled at (3288): [<ffffffffa01f1d5b>] rcu_read_unlock_bh+0x0/0x2f [ipv6]
> softirqs last disabled at (3289): [<ffffffff815ddafc>] do_softirq_own_stack+0x1c/0x30
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(adap_rcu_lock);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(adap_rcu_lock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
Sorry, I do not understand the problem.
This lock should be taken from process context only.
You did not provide full lockdep report, did you ?
--
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