Re: 2.6.34-rc1: rcu lockdep bug?

[AmÃrico Wang]

2010/3/15 AmÃrico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 01:58:38PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 01:33:56PM +0800, AmÃrico Wang wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:37:38PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> >Le vendredi 12 mars 2010 Ã 21:11 +0800, AmÃrico Wang a Ãcrit :
>>> >
>>> >> Oh, but lockdep complains about rcu_read_lock(), it said
>>> >> rcu_read_lock() can't be used in softirq context.
>>> >>
>>> >> Am I missing something?
>>> >
>>> >Well, lockdep might be dumb, I dont know...
>>> >
>>> >I suggest you read rcu_read_lock_bh kernel doc :
>>> >
>>> >/**
>>> > * rcu_read_lock_bh - mark the beginning of a softirq-only RCU critical
>>> >section
>>> > *
>>> > * This is equivalent of rcu_read_lock(), but to be used when updates
>>> > * are being done using call_rcu_bh(). Since call_rcu_bh() callbacks
>>> > * consider completion of a softirq handler to be a quiescent state,
>>> > * a process in RCU read-side critical section must be protected by
>>> > * disabling softirqs. Read-side critical sections in interrupt context
>>> > * can use just rcu_read_lock().
>>> > *
>>> > */
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Last sentence being perfect :
>>> >
>>> >Read-side critical sections in interrupt context
>>> >can use just rcu_read_lock().
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yeah, right, then it is more likely to be a bug of rcu lockdep.
>>> Paul is looking at it.
>>
>>Except that it seems to be working correctly for me...
>>
>
> Hmm, then I am confused. The only possibility here is that this is
> a lockdep bug...
>

I believe so...

Peter, this looks odd:

 kernel:  (usbfs_mutex){+.?...}, at: [<ffffffff8146419f>]
netif_receive_skb+0xe7/0x819

netif_receive_skb() never has a chance to take usbfs_mutex. How can this
comes out?
--
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/