Re: Linux 3.6-rc4

[Dave Jones]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:36:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra 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

What's happening with this series ? I'm still seeing these traces in rc6.

	Dave

--
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/