On 28/07/17 17:14, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 07/28/2017 10:53 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> When starting the xenwatch thread a theoretical deadlock situation is
>> possible:
>>
>> xs_init() contains:
>>
>> task = kthread_run(xenwatch_thread, NULL, "xenwatch");
>> if (IS_ERR(task))
>>
On 07/28/2017 10:53 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> When starting the xenwatch thread a theoretical deadlock situation is
> possible:
>
> xs_init() contains:
>
> task = kthread_run(xenwatch_thread, NULL, "xenwatch");
> if (IS_ERR(task))
> return PTR_ERR(task);
> xenwatch_pid =
When starting the xenwatch thread a theoretical deadlock situation is
possible:
xs_init() contains:
task = kthread_run(xenwatch_thread, NULL, "xenwatch");
if (IS_ERR(task))
return PTR_ERR(task);
xenwatch_pid = task->pid;
And xenwatch_thread() does:
mutex_lock(_mutex);
Hi Jürgen,
On 08/06/17 15:00, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 07/06/17 18:24, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> There has been a report about a deadlock in the xenbus driver:
>>
>> [ 247.979498] ==
>> [ 247.985688] WARNING: possible circular locking
On 07/06/17 18:24, Juergen Gross wrote:
> There has been a report about a deadlock in the xenbus driver:
>
> [ 247.979498] ==
> [ 247.985688] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 247.991882] 4.12.0-rc4-00022-gc4b25c0
There has been a report about a deadlock in the xenbus driver:
[ 247.979498] ==
[ 247.985688] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 247.991882] 4.12.0-rc4-00022-gc4b25c0 #575 Not tainted
[ 247.997040]
