On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 01:47:02PM +0800, Dave Young wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 08:56:39AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:09:33AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> >
> >> > =============================================
> >> > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> >> > 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 #15
> >> > ---------------------------------------------
> >> > modprobe/942 is trying to acquire lock:
> >> > (&cls->mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff811b431e>] device_add+0x43d/0x57a
> >> >
> >> > but task is already holding lock:
> >> > (&cls->mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff811b6787>] class_interface_register+0x48/0xbd
> >> >
> >> > other info that might help us debug this:
> >> > 1 lock held by modprobe/942:
> >> > #0: (&cls->mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff811b6787>] class_interface_register+0x48/0xbd
> >> >
> >> > stack backtrace:
> >> > Pid: 942, comm: modprobe Not tainted 2.6.26-rc2-mm1 #15
> >> >
> >> > Call Trace:
> >> > [<ffffffff81056be1>] __lock_acquire+0x90d/0xc50
> >> > [<ffffffff8100c50f>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
> >> > [<ffffffff811b431e>] ? device_add+0x43d/0x57a
> >> > [<ffffffff81057276>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xb7
> >> > [<ffffffff811b431e>] ? device_add+0x43d/0x57a
> >> > [<ffffffff812b23ab>] mutex_lock_nested+0xf2/0x278
> >> > [<ffffffff811b431e>] ? device_add+0x43d/0x57a
> >> > [<ffffffff812b3acd>] ? _spin_unlock+0x23/0x28
> >> > [<ffffffff811b431e>] device_add+0x43d/0x57a
> >> > [<ffffffff811b4471>] device_register+0x16/0x1b
> >> > [<ffffffff811b4555>] device_create+0xdf/0x112
> >> > [<ffffffff81055fdc>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf
> >> > [<ffffffff81055fdc>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf
> >> > [<ffffffff812b1fe1>] ? mutex_unlock+0x9/0xb
> >> > [<ffffffff811b79b7>] ? kobj_map+0x113/0x124
> >> > [<ffffffff810ac0f5>] ? exact_lock+0x0/0x14
> >> > [<ffffffff810abd09>] ? exact_match+0x0/0x9
> >> > [<ffffffffa00ec448>] :sg:sg_add+0x2a3/0x3bd
> >> > [<ffffffff811b67b6>] class_interface_register+0x77/0xbd
> >> > [<ffffffffa005d869>] :scsi_mod:scsi_register_interface+0x11/0x13
> >> > [<ffffffffa00d50a3>] :sg:init_sg+0xa3/0x155
> >> > [<ffffffff8105ea8f>] sys_init_module+0x1823/0x197a
> >> > [<ffffffff810c45bc>] ? seq_release+0x0/0x56
> >> > [<ffffffff8100bebb>] system_call_after_swapgs+0x7b/0x80
> >>
> >> I'm guessing that this is due to David's "change the semaphore to a
> >> mutex" patch that you have in your tree, but I refused to take as I was
> >> worried about just this issue :)
> >
> > Hm, I thought I saw the same patch from Arjan months ago ... anyway.
> >
> > class_interface_register() (at least in -rc2) holds &parent->sem (ie the
> > result of calling class_get() on the class) around calling ->add_dev.
> > The class in this case is the sg_sysfs_class, so it's calling sg_add().
> > sg_add() calls device_create() which calls device_add() which acquires
> > the &dev->class->sem. The class in this case would _also_ seem to be
> > sg_sysfs_class.
> >
> > So why doesn't this deadlock today?
>
> The classes are different here, first sdev_class, then sg_sysfs_class
Greg, what about using mutex_lock_nested to silence lockdep? They are
the only usage of class->mutex out of class.c
Signed-off-by: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/base/core.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff -upr linux/drivers/base/core.c linux.new/drivers/base/core.c
--- linux/drivers/base/core.c 2008-05-15 16:48:31.000000000 +0800
+++ linux.new/drivers/base/core.c 2008-05-15 16:47:59.000000000 +0800
@@ -888,7 +888,7 @@ int device_add(struct device *dev)
klist_add_tail(&dev->knode_parent, &parent->klist_children);
if (dev->class) {
- mutex_lock(&dev->class->mutex);
+ mutex_lock_nested(&dev->class->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
/* tie the class to the device */
list_add_tail(&dev->node, &dev->class->devices);
@@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ void device_del(struct device *dev)
if (dev->class) {
device_remove_class_symlinks(dev);
- mutex_lock(&dev->class->mutex);
+ mutex_lock_nested(&dev->class->mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
/* notify any interfaces that the device is now gone */
list_for_each_entry(class_intf, &dev->class->interfaces, node)
if (class_intf->remove_dev)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
