Krzysztof Halasa <[email protected]> :
[...]
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> -------------------------------------------------------
> swapper/0 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&dev->queue_lock){-+..}, at: [<c02c8c46>] dev_queue_xmit+0x56/0x290
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}, at: [<c02c8e14>] dev_queue_xmit+0x224/0x290
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}:
> [<c012e7b6>] lock_acquire+0x76/0xa0
> [<c0336241>] _spin_lock_bh+0x31/0x40
> [<c02d25a9>] dev_activate+0x69/0x120
[...]
> [<c0169957>] vfs_ioctl+0x57/0x290
> [<c0169bc9>] sys_ioctl+0x39/0x60
> [<c0102c8d>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d
>
> -> #0 (&dev->queue_lock){-+..}:
> [<c012e7b6>] lock_acquire+0x76/0xa0
> [<c03361fc>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> [<c02c8c46>] dev_queue_xmit+0x56/0x290
[...]
> [<c01194b5>] __do_softirq+0x55/0xc0
> [<c0104b13>] do_softirq+0x63/0xd0
dev_activate takes BH disabling locks only. How could a softirq happen
on the same cpu and trigger a deadlock ?
--
Ueimor
--
VGER BF report: U 0.500151
-
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]
