* Fengguang Wu <fengguang...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 12:50:39PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 19:34 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > I got the warning
> > >
> > > [ 10.412023]
> > > [ 10.412611] ======================================================
> > > [ 10.413014] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > [ 10.413014] 3.6.0-rc4-00098-g7eaffe9 #402 Not tainted
> > > [ 10.413014] -------------------------------------------------------
> > > [ 10.413014] init/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [ 10.413014] (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff81088214>]
> > > task_work_add+0x28/0x82
> > > [ 10.413014]
> > > [ 10.413014] but task is already holding lock:
> > > [ 10.413014] (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8109c6ea>]
> > > scheduler_tick+0x3f/0xec
> > > [ 10.413014]
> > > [ 10.413014] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > > [ 10.413014]
> > > [ 10.413014]
> > >
> >
> > The commit ac3d0da8f3290b3d394cdb7f50604424a7cd6092 should avoid this
> > from happening, not sure what branch its on, but it was in tip before
> > all this landed, so I guess its due to you testing sched/numa branch and
> > not a merged branch like master or auto-next.
>
> Peter, you are right, it's tested in tip:sched/numa. linux-next is
> fine. Hmm, I should automatically test linux-next before raising the
> problem, hehe.
tip:master is well-tested and generally a couple of days fresher
than linux-next, so in such a case where you are interested in
tip:sched/numa you should probably test tip:master.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
