> I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by the voluminous output of this checker.
> Especially as (directly at least) cpufreq doesn't touch vma's, or mmap's.
the reporter doesn't have CONFIG_KALLSYMS_ALL enabled which gives
sometimes misleading backtraces (should lockdep just enable KALLSYMS_ALL
to get more useful bugreports?)
the problem is this, there are 2 scenarios in this bug:
One
---
store_scaling_governor takes policy->lock and then calls __cpufreq_set_policy
__cpufreq_set_policy calls __cpufreq_governor
__cpufreq_governor calls __cpufreq_driver_target via cpufreq_governor_performance
__cpufreq_driver_target calls lock_cpu_hotplug() (which takes the hotplug lock)
Two
---
cpufreq_stats_init lock_cpu_hotplug() and then calls cpufreq_stat_cpu_callback
cpufreq_stat_cpu_callback calls cpufreq_update_policy
cpufreq_update_policy takes the policy->lock
so this looks like a real honest AB-BA deadlock to me...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]