On 29-11-2006 08:49, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>> =========================================================
>> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.19-rc6 #4
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> nc/1854 just changed the state of lock:
>> (af_callback_keys + sk->sk_family#2){-.-?}, at: [<c0268a7f>] sock_def_error_report+0x1f/0x90
>> but this lock was taken by another, soft-irq-safe lock in the past:
>> (slock-AF_INET){-+..}
>>
>> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
> I think this is bogus. The slock is not a standard lock. When we
> hold it in process context we don't actually hold the spin lock part
> of it. However, it does prevent the softirq path from running in
> critical sections which also prevents any attempt to grab the
> callback lock from softirq context.
>
> If you still think there is a problem, please show an actual scenario
> where it dead locks.
It would be nice to have a look at other parts of stack
backtraces probably with softirq part, which took that
lock: sk->sk_family#2){-.-?}
Jarek P.
-
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]
