lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS-feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Complete thread (EXPERIMENTAL)
/
DateMon, 24 Mar 2008 10:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
FromLinus Torvalds <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] printk vs rq->lock and xtime lock
Digg This


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



\
ISP Services
Valid XHTML 1.0!\ /
Valid CSS! Last update: 2008-03-24 19:03    [W:0.212 / U:0.070 seconds]
©2003-2005 Jasper Spaans