On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:44:13 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> lockdep complains about the lock nesting of clocksource and watchdog
> lock in the resume path. Move watchdog resume out of the clocksource
> lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.21/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.21.orig/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> +++ linux-2.6.21/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> @@ -151,9 +151,11 @@ static void clocksource_watchdog(unsigne
> }
> static void clocksource_resume_watchdog(void)
> {
> - spin_lock(&watchdog_lock);
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&watchdog_lock, flags);
> watchdog_resumed = 1;
> - spin_unlock(&watchdog_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&watchdog_lock, flags);
> }
>
> static void clocksource_check_watchdog(struct clocksource *cs)
> @@ -224,9 +226,9 @@ void clocksource_resume(void)
> cs->resume();
> }
>
> - clocksource_resume_watchdog();
> -
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&clocksource_lock, flags);
> +
> + clocksource_resume_watchdog();
> }
>
The locking in clocksource_resume_watchdog looks pretty pointless anyway.
Can't we just delete it?
The only thing it can race against is, conceivably,
resumed = watchdog_resumed;
if (unlikely(resumed))
watchdog_resumed = 0;
which could be solved by using test_and_clear_bit().
Does anyone have any theories about my lockdep warning?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
