Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:39:43 -0700 | Subject | Re: Linux 3.6-rc4 |
| |
Al? Please look into this. I'm not entirely sure what's going on, but lockdep complains about this:
Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); local_irq_disable(); lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock); lock(tasklist_lock); <Interrupt> lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
and it looks real. IOW, if I read that right, we have the task_lock -> it_lock dependency through exit_itimers(), and then we have the tasklist_lock -> task_lock dependency everywhere else. So now it_lock -> tasklist_lock becomes a deadlock.
Linus
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09/04/2012 05:44 PM, Dave Jones wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 03:10:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > The kernel summit is over, and most people have either returned or are >> > returning from San Diego. >> >> Still seeing this, that I started seeing just before leaving for San Diego.. >> >> Dave > > I've bisected this one down to > > > d35abdb28824cf74f0a106a0f9c6f3ff700a35bf is the first bad commit > commit d35abdb28824cf74f0a106a0f9c6f3ff700a35bf > Author: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > Date: Sat Jun 30 11:55:24 2012 +0400 > > hold task_lock around checks in keyctl > > Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> > > > Just didn't get a response from anyone when I've mailed about it...
| |