Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 01:02:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 12:58 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > {
> > 	struct task_struct *t = current;
> > 
> > 	barrier();  /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
> > 	--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> > 	barrier();  /* decrement before load of ->rcu_read_unlock_special */
> > 	if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > 	    unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> > 		rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> > 
> > Thus the question is, how did we get rcu_read_unlock_special set here?
> 
> Looks like another process could set this with:
> 
> static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> {
> 	[...]
> 	t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
> 	rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
> 	t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
> 	t->rcu_read_unlock_special |= RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED;

But only if that task was preempted while in the RCU read-side critical
section that resulted in the call to rcu_read_unlock_special(), which
should not happen if the task has irqs disabled for the duration of that
RCU read-side critical section, right?

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/