From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750708AbWF3Wpz (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:45:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750822AbWF3Wpy (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:45:54 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.181]:8599 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750708AbWF3Wpy (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:45:54 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=R+zK76M+06Em4UGc7eqBEOAW/RhKM7PhovcG+c2B67+hPySBmQ5t/XU/d54TZDAqm2UvfG6dLTqFffgwr2yyZp57fob+k+Oc4SZHCr4lur93JdCNZGX4rNRp9Duj1vfTXwTMoJCw3+gjxXTxHXuh6++xUBj/norTOm6bHy7Cftk= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:45:53 -0700 From: "Miles Lane" To: "Ingo Molnar" Subject: Re: [patch] lockdep, annotate slocks: turn lockdep off for them Cc: "Herbert Xu" , "Andrew Morton" , LKML , "Arjan van de Ven" In-Reply-To: <20060630203804.GA1950@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060630065041.GB6572@elte.hu> <20060630072231.GB7057@elte.hu> <20060630091850.GA10713@elte.hu> <20060630111734.GA22202@gondor.apana.org.au> <20060630113758.GA18504@elte.hu> <20060630203804.GA1950@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Okay, I rebuilt my kernel with your combo patch applied. Then, I inserted my US Robotics USR2210 PCMCIA wifi card, ran "pccardutil eject", popped out the card and then inserted a Compaq iPaq wifi card. This triggered the following. [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] ------------------------------------------------------- syslogd/1886 is trying to acquire lock: (&dev->queue_lock){-+..}, at: [] dev_queue_xmit+0x120/0x24b but task is already holding lock: (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}, at: [] dev_queue_xmit+0x183/0x24b which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}: [] lock_acquire+0x60/0x80 [] _spin_lock_bh+0x28/0x37 [] dev_activate+0xce/0x100 [] dev_open+0x4c/0x64 [] dev_change_flags+0x51/0xf1 [] do_setlink+0x73/0x312 [] rtnetlink_rcv_msg+0x1ae/0x1d1 [] netlink_run_queue+0x69/0x100 [] rtnetlink_rcv+0x29/0x42 [] netlink_data_ready+0x12/0x4f [] netlink_sendskb+0x1f/0x50 [] netlink_unicast+0x1b4/0x1ce [] netlink_sendmsg+0x259/0x266 [] sock_sendmsg+0xe8/0x103 [] sys_sendmsg+0x14f/0x1aa [] sys_socketcall+0x16b/0x186 [] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d -> #0 (&dev->queue_lock){-+..}: [] lock_acquire+0x60/0x80 [] _spin_lock+0x23/0x32 [] dev_queue_xmit+0x120/0x24b [] hostap_data_start_xmit+0x610/0x61a [hostap] [] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x206/0x212 [] dev_queue_xmit+0x19f/0x24b [] mld_sendpack+0x1a0/0x26a [ipv6] [] mld_ifc_timer_expire+0x1d6/0x1fd [ipv6] [] run_timer_softirq+0xf2/0x14a [] __do_softirq+0x55/0xb0 [] do_softirq+0x58/0xbd other info that might help us debug this: 4 locks held by syslogd/1886: #0: (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f #1: (&journal->j_state_lock){--..}, at: [] journal_stop+0x109/0x1f8 #2: (&transaction->t_handle_lock){--..}, at: [] journal_stop+0x113/0x1f8 #3: (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}, at: [] dev_queue_xmit+0x183/0x24b stack backtrace: [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x54/0xfd [] show_trace+0xd/0x10 [] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b [] print_circular_bug_tail+0x59/0x64 [] __lock_acquire+0x7db/0x970 [] lock_acquire+0x60/0x80 [] _spin_lock+0x23/0x32 [] dev_queue_xmit+0x120/0x24b [] hostap_data_start_xmit+0x610/0x61a [hostap] [] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x206/0x212 [] dev_queue_xmit+0x19f/0x24b [] mld_sendpack+0x1a0/0x26a [ipv6] [] mld_ifc_timer_expire+0x1d6/0x1fd [ipv6] [] run_timer_softirq+0xf2/0x14a [] __do_softirq+0x55/0xb0 [] do_softirq+0x58/0xbd [] irq_exit+0x3f/0x4b [] do_IRQ+0xc0/0xcf [] common_interrupt+0x25/0x2c On 6/30/06, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Miles Lane wrote: > > > I cannot get this patch to apply cleanly to 2.6.17-mm4. Since the > > patch listed in this message covers the same files as your previous > > lockdep-annotate-slock.patch, I am assuming this is supposed to > > replace it. I should also still apply > > lockdep-core-add-set-class-and-name.patch, correct? > > correct. My latest combo patch has it all included, it's at: > > http://redhat.com/~mingo/lockdep-patches/lockdep-combo-2.6.17-mm4.patch > > could you try that one? > > Ingo >