lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 3.16-rc6
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > Well, it looks like we f*cked up something after -rc5 since I'm starting
> > to see lockdep splats all over the place which I didn't see before. I'm
> > running rc6 + tip/master.
> >
> > There was one in r8169 yesterday:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140722081840.GA6462@pd.tnic
> >
> > and now I'm seeing the following in a kvm guest. I'm adding some more
> > lists to CC which look like might be related, judging from the stack
> > traces.
>
> Hmm. I'm not seeing the reason for this.
>
> > [ 31.704282] [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> > [ 31.704282] 3.16.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
> > [ 31.704282] ---------------------------------------------------------
> > [ 31.704282] Xorg/3484 just changed the state of lock:
> > [ 31.704282] (tasklist_lock){.?.+..}, at: [<ffffffff81184b19>] send_sigio+0x59/0x1b0
> > [ 31.704282] but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> > [ 31.704282] (&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.+...}
>
> Ok, so the claim is that there's a 'p->alloc_lock' (ie "task_lock()")
> that is inside the tasklist_lock, which would indeed be wrong. But I'm
> not seeing it. The "shortest dependencies" thing seems to imply
> __set_task_comm(), but that only takes task_lock.
>

It's the reverse, task_lock() inside tasklist_lock is fine but it's
complaining about taking tasklist_lock inside task_lock().

I don't think it's anything that's sitting in tip/master nor is it
something that was introduced during this merge window. I think this has
been the behavior dating back to commit 94dfd7edfd5c ("USB: HCD: support
giveback of URB in tasklet context").


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-24 04:22    [W:0.063 / U:66.312 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site