Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Don't recursively acquire rtc_lock

[Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org>]

On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 17:17 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> (Adding Jan and Avi, apparently git send-email doesn't grok Acked-by's)
> 
> On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 17:12 +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
> > 
> > A deadlock was introduced on x86 in commit ef68c8f87ed1 ("x86:
> > Serialize EFI time accesses on rtc_lock") because efi_get_time() and
> > friends can be called with rtc_lock already held by
> > read_persistent_time(), e.g.
> > 
> > timekeeping_init()
> >     read_persistent_clock()     <-- acquire rtc_lock
> >         efi_get_time()
> >             phys_efi_get_time() <-- acquire rtc_lock <DEADLOCK>
> > 
> > To fix this let's push the locking down into the get_wallclock() and
> > set_wallclock() implementations. Only the clock implementations that
> > access the x86 RTC directly need to acquire rtc_lock, so it makes
> > sense to push the locking down into the rtc, vrtc and efi code.
> > 
> > The virtualization implementations don't require rtc_lock to be held
> > because they provide their own serialization.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
> > Acked-by: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> [for the virtualization aspect]

Ping? It's -rc8 and 32-bit EFI machines still don't boot.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center