lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Patch 0/2] sysfs: fix s_active lockdep warning
Dave Young wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Cong Wang <amwang@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Dave Young wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 04:41:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 10:30 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, so this device stuff is much more complicated than I was led to
>>>>>> believe ;-)
>>>>> Haven't I told you all along that tree-structured locking is
>>>>> complicated? :-)
>>>> Well, regular tree's aren't all that complicated, but multiple
>>>> inter-locking trees is a whole different story indeed.
>>>>
>>> I ever tried converting device semaphore to mutex, but failed with same
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> At least now there's no lockdep solution for it, so I recommend revert
>>> the mutex converting patch.
>>>
>>> following lockdep warning with rc6-mm1:
>>>
>>> [ 0.397123] [ 0.397124]
>>> =============================================
>>> [ 0.397359] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>>> [ 0.397480] 2.6.33-rc6-mm1 #1
>>> [ 0.397596] ---------------------------------------------
>>> [ 0.397717] swapper/1 is trying to acquire lock:
>>> [ 0.397836] (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c12662e4>]
>>> __driver_attach+0x38/0x63
>>> [ 0.398162] [ 0.398162] but task is already holding lock:
>>> [ 0.398393] (&dev->mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c12662d8>]
>>> __driver_attach+0x2c/0x63
>>> [ 0.399999]
>> Alan already provided a patch for this issue earlier in this thread.
>
> Yes, but device locks can not be classified with regular tree style.

True, Alan mentioned the device trees could be more than one,
which is the difference with the sysfs, I think, where we only
have one tree.

> Please read the whole thread.

Surely I did.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-08 04:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans