Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:20:38 -0400 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: lockdep trace from posix timers |
| |
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:36:13PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > Linus tree as of 5fecc9d8f59e765c2a48379dd7c6f5cf88c7d75a > > Dave > > ====================================================== > [ INFO: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ] > 3.5.0+ #122 Not tainted > ------------------------------------------------------ > trinity-child2/5327 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: > blocked: (tasklist_lock){.+.+..}, instance: ffffffff81c05098, at: [<ffffffff8109762b>] posix_cpu_timer_del+0x2b/0xe0 > > and this task is already holding: > blocked: (&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, instance: ffff880143bce170, at: [<ffffffff81093d49>] __lock_timer+0x89/0x1f0 > which would create a new lock dependency: > (&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock){-.-...} -> (tasklist_lock){.+.+..} > > but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock: > (&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock){-.-...} > ... which became HARDIRQ-irq-safe at:
Shall I start bisecting this ? I can trigger it very easily, but if you can give me a set of commits to narrow down, it'll speed up the bisection.
Dave
| |