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 -- 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/
