On Tue 20-03-07 12:31:51, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:22:53PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 12:17:01PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > ...
> > > IMHO lockdep found that two locks are taken in different order:
> > >
> > > -> #1: 1) tty_mutex in con_console() 2) dqptr_sem (somewhere later)
> > > -> #0: 1) dqptr_sem 2) tty_console in dquot_alloc_space() with
> > > print_warning()
>
> Once more - should be:
> -> #1: 1) tty_mutex in con_close() 2) dqptr_sem (somewhere later)
> -> #0: 1) dqptr_sem 2) tty_mutex in dquot_alloc_space() with print_warning()
Yes, I was looking at it. Hmm, we can possibly get rid of tty_mutex being
acquired under dqptr_sem in quota code. But looking at the path from
con_close() there's another inversion with i_mutex which is also acquired
along the path for sysfs. And we can hardly get rid of it in the quota code.
Now none of these is a real deadlock as quota should never call
print_warning() for sysfs (it doesn't use quota) but still it's nasty. I
suppose tty_mutex is above i_mutex because of those sysfs calls and it
seems sysfs must be called under tty_mutex because of races with
init_dev(). So it's not easy to get rid of that dependency either.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SuSE CR Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
