Re: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to destroy_workqueue()
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Thu Apr 01 2010 - 00:15:39 EST
On 04/01/2010 01:09 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> This seems to be from the original thread of frame#3. It's grabbing
>> wq lock here but the problem is that the lock will be released
>> immediately, so bond_dev->name (the wq) can't be held by the time it
>> reaches frame#3. How is this dependency chain completed? Is it
>> somehow transitive through rtnl_mutex?
> wq lock is held *after* cpu_add_remove_lock, lockdep also said this,
> the process is trying to hold wq lock while having cpu_add_remove_lock.
Yeah yeah, I'm just failing to see how the other direction is
completed. ie. where does the kernel try to grab cpu_add_remove_lock
*after* grabbing wq lock?
>> Isn't there a circular dependency here? bonding_exit() calls
>> destroy_workqueue() under rtnl_mutex but destroy_workqueue() should
>> flush works which could be trying to grab rtnl_lock. Or am I
>> completely misunderstanding locking here?
> Sure, that is why I sent another patch for bonding. :)
Ah... great. :-)
> After this patch, another lockdep warning appears, it is exactly what
> you expect.
Hmmm... can you please try to see whether this circular locking
warning involving wq->lockdep_map is reproducible w/ the bonding
locking fixed? I still can't see where wq -> cpu_add_remove_lock
dependency is created.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/