[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.17-rc5-mm2

> >
> So it's claiming that we're taking multiple i_mutexes.
> I can't immediately see where we took the outermost i_mutex there.

inlining caused one level to be removed from the backtrace
one level is in fs_remove_file, the sub level is usbfs_unlink (called
from fs_remove_file)

> Nor is
> it immediately obvious why this is considered to be deadlockable?

what is missing is that we tell lockdep that there is a parent-child
relationship between those two i_mutexes, so that it knows that 1)
they're separate and 2) that the lock take order is parent->child

> (lockdep tells us that a mutex was taken at "mutex_lock+0x8/0xa", which is
> fairly useless. We need to report who the caller of mutex_lock() was).

yeah this has been bugging me as well; either via a wrapper around
mutex_lock or via the gcc option to backwalk the stack (but that only
works with frame pointers enabled.. sigh)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-01 19:30    [W:0.107 / U:2.224 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site