Re: Deadlock scenario in regulator core

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 20:07 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 16:41 -0700, David Collins wrote:
> 
> > There seem to be very few uses of mutex_lock_nested() in the kernel.  Most
> > of them use subclass = SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING.  Would this be sufficient for
> > usage in the regulator core in _notifier_call_chain (and perhaps other
> > places) or should some other subclass be used?
> 
> Note, I do not know this code well enough to say. I'm assuming that an
> rdevA on a rdevB->supply_list never has rdevB on its own
> rdevA->supply_list.
> 
> If this is the case, and that you only ever have a lock nesting of one,
> then sure, use the SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING.
> 
> Peter or Ingo could correct me if I'm wrong.

Right, so be aware that you can annotate an actual deadlock away with
mutex_lock_nested(), so use with care. The thing to avoid is something
like:

  mutex_lock(instance1);
  mutex_lock_nested(instance2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);

vs

  mutex_lock(instance2);
  mutex_lock_nested(instance1, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);

Lockdep will not complain anymore but it will cause deadlocks.

--
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/