Hello,
On 11/11/2010 02:02 AM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> I don't really see any deadlock here... hmm. Tejun, do you see anything
> wrong with the "locking" in workq stuff here?
>
> Something is holding the RTNL, and a bunch of other things are trying to
> acquire it. We don't really know who's holding it and who's acquiring it
> though.
>
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: #2: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c070220f>] rtnl_lock+0xf/0x11
...
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c070220f>] rtnl_lock+0xf/0x11
...
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: #2: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c070220f>] rtnl_lock+0xf/0x11
...
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: 1 lock held by ip/6438:
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c070f78c>] netlink_dump+0x3a/0x16a
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: 1 lock held by ip/6441:
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c070220f>] rtnl_lock+0xf/0x11
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: 1 lock held by ip/6442:
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c070220f>] rtnl_lock+0xf/0x11
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: 1 lock held by iwconfig/6443:
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c070220f>] rtnl_lock+0xf/0x11
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: 1 lock held by ip/6444:
>> Nov 10 14:54:33 localhost kernel: #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c070220f>] rtnl_lock+0xf/0x11
Looks like everyone is stuck trying to get hold of rtnl_mutex.
Lockdep seems enabled, isn't there a sysrq which shows all held locks?
Yeah, it's 'd'. I don't think much can be found out by looking at the
above part. We need to be looking at who's holding the lock. Is the
problem reproducible?
Thank you.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
