From: "Miles Lane" <miles.lane@gmail.com>
To: "Stefan Richter" <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: "Greg KH" <gregkh@suse.de>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Herbert Xu" <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
"Ben Collins" <bcollins@ubuntu.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- INFO: possible recursive locking detected
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 15:45:34 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a44ae5cd0609071545p26b42432ife69bf7c63d41dd0@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44FEFC68.90201@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
On 9/6/06, Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I wrote:
> >> Or maybe it's older. Nodemgr takes class->subsys.rwsem and
> >> device.bus->subsys.rwsem. It always did. Could there be a change in
> >> driver core which makes this recursive? Or has it always been recursive?
> >> For example,
> >>
> >> static void nodemgr_update_pdrv(struct node_entry *ne)
> >> {
> >> struct unit_directory *ud;
> >> struct hpsb_protocol_driver *pdrv;
> >> struct class *class = &nodemgr_ud_class;
> >> struct class_device *cdev;
> >>
> >> down_read(&class->subsys.rwsem);
> >> list_for_each_entry(cdev, &class->children, node) {
>
> This may be wrong anyway. According to include/linux/device.h,
> class->sem should be used to protect access to class->children. There
> are more places in nodemgr of this sort.
>
> >> ud = container_of(cdev, struct unit_directory, class_dev);
> >> if (ud->ne != ne || !ud->device.driver)
> >> continue;
> >>
> >> pdrv = container_of(ud->device.driver, struct hpsb_protocol_driver, driver);
> >>
> >> if (pdrv->update && pdrv->update(ud)) {
> >> down_write(&ud->device.bus->subsys.rwsem);
> >> device_release_driver(&ud->device);
> >> up_write(&ud->device.bus->subsys.rwsem);
> >> }
> >> }
> >> up_read(&class->subsys.rwsem);
> >> }
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > perhaps you could advise on this. It appears from grepping through the
> > sources that drivers/ieee1394/nodemgr.c is the only one with mixed
> > access to device.bus->subsys.rwsem and class->subsys.rwsem.
> >
> > Other usages of subsys.rwsem that I found are:
> > 1a.) dev->bus->subsys.rwsem
> > driver/ide/ide-proc.c and drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c take
> > dev->bus->subsys.rwsem. drivers/pnp/card.c takes dev.bus->subsys.rwsem.
> >
> > 1b.) driver.bus->subsys.rwsem
> > drivers/s390/net/qeth_proc.c takes driver.bus->subsys.rwsem.
> >
> > 2.) class->subsys.rwsem
> > drivers/scsi/hosts.c takes class->subsys.rwsem.
> >
> > 3.) bustype.subsys.rwsem
> > drivers/input/serio/serio.c takes serio_bus.subsys.rwsem.
> > drivers/input/gameport/gameport.c takes gameport_bus.subsys.rwsem.
> > drivers/base/power/shutdown.c takes devices_subsys.rwsem.
> > drivers/usb/core/devices.c and devio.c take usb_bus_type.subsys.rwsem.
> >
> > Do class->subsys.rwsem, bus->subsys.rwsem, and bus_type.subsys.rwsem
> > point to identical or different lock instances?
> >
> > Either way, could it hurt to convert nodemgr to uniformly use
> > ieee1394_bus_type.subsys.rwsem all over the place?
I don't have time to do the bisection testing. If there is a patch
you'd like me to test against 2.6.18-rc5-mm1+all hotfixes, please let
me know. I apologize for not being able to narrow this down further
for you.
Miles
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-07 22:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-05 17:37 Miles Lane
2006-09-05 18:13 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-05 18:16 ` Miles Lane
2006-09-05 19:03 ` Stefan Richter
2006-09-05 19:19 ` Miles Lane
2006-09-05 19:51 ` Stefan Richter
2006-09-05 19:23 ` Stefan Richter
2006-09-05 21:07 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-09-05 22:27 ` Stefan Richter
2006-09-06 0:10 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-09-06 7:13 ` Stefan Richter
2006-09-06 16:50 ` Stefan Richter
2006-09-06 17:04 ` [RFT PATCH 1/2] ieee1394: nodemgr: fix rwsem recursion Stefan Richter
2006-09-06 17:06 ` [RFT PATCH 2/2] ieee1394: nodemgr: grab class.subsys.rwsem in nodemgr_resume_ne Stefan Richter
2006-09-07 22:45 ` Miles Lane [this message]
2006-09-07 23:23 ` 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- INFO: possible recursive locking detected Stefan Richter
2006-09-06 22:35 ` Greg KH
2006-09-05 19:49 ` Miles Lane
2006-09-05 20:19 ` Stefan Richter
2006-09-05 20:26 ` Stefan Richter
2006-09-05 20:33 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-06 6:39 ` Arjan van de Ven
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=a44ae5cd0609071545p26b42432ife69bf7c63d41dd0@mail.gmail.com \
--to=miles.lane@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bcollins@ubuntu.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux1394-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
/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®