On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:36:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 11:39 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Al? Please look into this. I'm not entirely sure what's going on, but > > lockdep complains about this: > > > > Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: > > > > CPU0 CPU1 > > ---- ---- > > lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock); > > local_irq_disable(); > > lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock); > > lock(tasklist_lock); > > <Interrupt> > > lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock); > > > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > > > and it looks real. IOW, if I read that right, we have the task_lock -> > > it_lock dependency through exit_itimers(), and then we have the > > tasklist_lock -> task_lock dependency everywhere else. So now it_lock > > -> tasklist_lock becomes a deadlock. > > Agreed, I've got the following series from Oleg queued to solve this: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=134600821828491&w=2
What's happening with this series ? I'm still seeing these traces in rc6. Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/