mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@gmail.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency at cleanup_workqueue_thread
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 13:18:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1242559101.28127.63.camel@johannes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090517071834.GA8507@elte.hu>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1866 bytes --]

On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 09:18 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Cc:s added. This dependency:

Not sure why you're not adding the cfg80211 maintainer if you think
cfg80211 causes the problem...

> > -> #2 (cfg80211_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> >        [<ffffffff80271a64>] __lock_acquire+0xc64/0x10a0
> >        [<ffffffff80271f38>] lock_acquire+0x98/0x140
> >        [<ffffffff8054e78c>] __mutex_lock_common+0x4c/0x3b0
> >        [<ffffffff8054ebf6>] mutex_lock_nested+0x46/0x60
> >        [<ffffffffa007e66a>] reg_todo+0x19a/0x590 [cfg80211]
> >        [<ffffffff80258f18>] worker_thread+0x1e8/0x3a0
> >        [<ffffffff8025dc3a>] kthread+0x5a/0xa0
> >        [<ffffffff8020d23a>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
> 
> is what sets the dependencies upside down.

I'm also not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, I would be
interested to hear how you did. In any case, it's most definitely not
cfg80211 causing it.

Cf. this, almost identical, lockdep report for example:
http://paste.pocoo.org/show/116240/
The logical conclusion here would be to say that the rtnl is responsible
here...

As you can see from the report, the only thing cfg80211_mutex does is
register a device struct while holding it -- claiming cfg80211 (or rtnl
in the other report which behaves the same) responsibility here because
of that is totally ludicrous -- that would mean you've suddenly changed
all the locking rules so that you can no longer register devices under a
lock that you also need from a work struct executed due to
schedule_work().

I'm not entirely sure yet, but I would think the problem might be a
false positive in the workqueue code -- remember this report only
triggers because cleanup_workqueue_thread() acquires the fake lock for
the workqueue. Maybe it shouldn't do that from the CPU_POST_DEAD
notifier? Oleg, can you help me out here?

johannes


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-05-17 11:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-05-12  7:59 Zdenek Kabelac
2009-05-17  7:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-17 10:42   ` Ming Lei
2009-05-17 11:18   ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2009-05-17 13:10     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-18 19:47     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-18 20:00       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-18 20:16         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-18 20:40           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-18 22:14             ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-19  9:13               ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-19 10:49                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-19 14:53                   ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-19  8:51       ` Johannes Berg
2009-05-19 12:00         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-19 15:33           ` Johannes Berg
2009-05-19 16:09             ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-19 16:27               ` Johannes Berg
2009-05-19 18:51                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-22 10:46                   ` Johannes Berg
2009-05-22 22:23                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-23  8:21                       ` Johannes Berg
2009-05-23 23:20                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-24  3:29                           ` Ming Lei
2009-05-24 11:09                             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-24 12:48                               ` Ming Lei
2009-05-24 19:09                                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-24 14:30                           ` Alan Stern
2009-05-24 19:06                             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-05-20  3:36             ` Ming Lei
2009-05-20  6:47               ` Johannes Berg
2009-05-20  7:09                 ` Ming Lei
2009-05-20  7:12                   ` Johannes Berg
2009-05-20  8:21                     ` Ming Lei
2009-05-20  8:45                       ` Johannes Berg
2009-05-22  8:03                 ` Ming Lei
2009-05-22  8:11                   ` Johannes Berg
2009-05-20 12:18   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-20 13:18     ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-20 13:44       ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-20 13:55         ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-05-20 14:12           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-24 18:58 ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1242559101.28127.63.camel@johannes.local \
    --to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=zdenek.kabelac@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®