From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1752116Ab0AZFhO@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752116Ab0AZFhO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:37:14 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751368Ab0AZFhN
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:37:13 -0500
Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:35953 "EHLO
	fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750848Ab0AZFhM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:37:12 -0500
X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Americo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [2.6.33-rc5] starting emacs makes lockdep warning
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <2375c9f91001252125w6f5bd3d3he183c61e9dcedd3e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20100126121618.5AA5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <2375c9f91001252125w6f5bd3d3he183c61e9dcedd3e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <20100126142644.5AB0.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:37:08 +0900 (JST)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:20 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Current linus tree made following lockdep warning when starting emacs command.
> > Is this known issue?
> >
> >
> > =========================================================
> > [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> > 2.6.33-rc5 #77
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > emacs/1609 just changed the state of lock:
> >  (&(&tty->ctrl_lock)->rlock){+.....}, at: [<ffffffff8127c648>] tty_fasync+0xe8/0x190
> > but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the past:
> >  (&(&sighand->siglock)->rlock){-.....}
> >
> > and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
> >
> >
> 
> Hey,
> 
> does reverting commit 703625118 help?

Seems solved.

Thanks.