On Mon, Oct 30 2006, Mark Lord wrote: > ================================= > [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] > 2.6.19-rc3-git7-ml #3 > --------------------------------- > inconsistent {in-softirq-W} -> {softirq-on-W} usage. > startproc/4046 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes: > (&q->__queue_lock){-+..}, at: [<c0219091>] cfq_set_request+0x351/0x3b0 > {in-softirq-W} state was registered at: > [<c01376b1>] mark_lock+0x81/0x5f0 > [<c0138a90>] __lock_acquire+0x660/0xc10 > [<c013939d>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x80 > [<c0361c59>] _spin_lock+0x29/0x40 > [<c029fa24>] scsi_device_unbusy+0x64/0x90 > [<c029a5bc>] scsi_finish_command+0x1c/0xa0 > [<c02115c2>] blk_done_softirq+0x62/0x70 > [<c0122a27>] __do_softirq+0x87/0x100 > [<c0122af5>] do_softirq+0x55/0x60 > [<c0122f3c>] ksoftirqd+0x7c/0xd0 > [<c0130f76>] kthread+0xf6/0x100 > [<c0103c6f>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x18 > [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff > irq event stamp: 3331 > hardirqs last enabled at (3331): [<c016326d>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x6d/0xa0 > hardirqs last disabled at (3330): [<c016321f>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x1f/0xa0 > softirqs last enabled at (3012): [<c0122af5>] do_softirq+0x55/0x60 > softirqs last disabled at (2971): [<c0122af5>] do_softirq+0x55/0x60 Not sure what exactly is complained about here. The queue_lock must always be grabbed with an irq disabling option, such as _irq or _irqsave if potentially in interrupt context. I'm guessing it's the scsi_device_unbusy() locking sequence that confuses it: spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags); ... spin_unlock(shost->host_lock); spin_lock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock); ... spin_unlock_irqrestore(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock, flags); which has always been considered safe, while not very pretty. Ingo? -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html