On Tue 20-03-07 14:44:46, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 01:19:09PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I wonder if this cannot be done with a workqueue (message to a buffer,
> maybe after try_lock on tty_mutex) and BTW isn't there any "modern"
> way to queue console messages like these?
I don't know about any such way...
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/
