lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Linux 3.6-rc4
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Agreed, I've got the following series from Oleg queued to solve this:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=134600821828491&w=2

I'm still seeing lockdep warnings even with the code above applied.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-15 15:01    [W:1.048 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site