[Powerpc / eHEA] Circular dependency with 2.6.29-rc6
Peter Zijlstra
peterz at infradead.org
Thu Feb 26 02:50:13 EST 2009
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 16:05 +0100, Jan-Bernd Themann wrote:
> - When "open" is called for a registered network device, port->port_lock
> is taken first,
> then ehea_fw_handles.lock
> - When "open" is left these locks are released in a proper way (inverse
> order)
So this has:
port->port_lock
ehea_fw_handles.lock
This would be the case that is generating the warning.
> - In addition: ehea_fw_handles.lock is held by the function
> "driver_probe_device"
> that registers all available network devices (register_netdev)
> - When multiple network devices are registered, it is possible that
> "open" is
> called on an already registered network device while further
> netdevices are still registered
> in "driver_probe_device". ---> "open" will take port->port_lock, but
> won't get ehea_fw_handles.lock
Right, so here you have
ehea_fw_handles.lock
port->port_lock
Overlay these two cases and you have AB-BA deadlocks.
> - However, ehea_fw_handles.lock is freed once all netdevices are registered.
> - When the second netdevice is registered in "driver_probe_device", it
> will also try to get
> the port->port_lock (which in fact is a different one, as there is one
> per netdevice).
> - Does the mutex debug mechanism distinguish between the different
> port->port_lock instances?
Not unless you tell it to.
Are you really sure the port->port_lock in this AB-BA scenario are never
the same? The above explanation didn't convince me (also very hard to
read due to funny wrapping).
Suppose you do an open concurrently with a re-probe, which apparently
takes port->port_lock's of existing devices, in the above scenario that
deadlocks.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list