lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: lockdep trace from posix timers
    On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:36:13PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
    > Linus tree as of 5fecc9d8f59e765c2a48379dd7c6f5cf88c7d75a
    >
    > Dave
    >
    > ======================================================
    > [ INFO: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
    > 3.5.0+ #122 Not tainted
    > ------------------------------------------------------
    > trinity-child2/5327 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
    > blocked: (tasklist_lock){.+.+..}, instance: ffffffff81c05098, at: [<ffffffff8109762b>] posix_cpu_timer_del+0x2b/0xe0
    >
    > and this task is already holding:
    > blocked: (&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, instance: ffff880143bce170, at: [<ffffffff81093d49>] __lock_timer+0x89/0x1f0
    > which would create a new lock dependency:
    > (&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock){-.-...} -> (tasklist_lock){.+.+..}
    >
    > but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock:
    > (&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock){-.-...}
    > ... which became HARDIRQ-irq-safe at:

    Shall I start bisecting this ? I can trigger it very easily, but if you
    can give me a set of commits to narrow down, it'll speed up the bisection.

    Dave


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-07-27 19:01    [W:0.023 / U:59.504 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site