On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > >> I am confused. Lockdep has observed both of these stacks: >> >> CPU0 CPU1 >> ---- ---- >> lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock); >> lock(_xmit_ETHER#2); >> lock(&(&q->lock)->rlock); >> lock(_xmit_ETHER#2); >> >> >> So it somehow happened. Or what do you mean? >> > > Lockdep said " possible circular locking dependency detected " . > It is not an actual deadlock, but lockdep machinery firing. > > For a dead lock to happen, this would require that he ICMP message > sent by ip_expire() is itself fragmented and reassembled. > This cannot be, because ICMP messages are not candidates for > fragmentation, but lockdep can not know that of course...
Ah, I see. Thanks.
