![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > As to the regression reported by Marcin; what happens is that we invoke > printk() while holding the xtime lock for writing. printk() will call > wake_up_klogd() which tries to enqueue klogd on some rq. > > The known deadlock here is calling printk() while holding rq->lock, which > would then try to recusively lock the rq again when trying to wake klogd. Ok. Right now, however, I think that for 2.6.25 I'll just remove the printk. And for the long haul, I really don't think the solution is "printk_nowakup()", because this is going to happen again when somebody doesn't realize the code is called with the rq lock held, and it's going to be a bitch to debug. I just don't think this is maintainable. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-24 18:03 [W:0.248 / U:0.600 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||