|
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:54:44 +0100 > From: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > To: buyit@xxxxxxx > CC: mulyadi.santosa@xxxxxxxxx; kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx; rabin@xxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: spinlock deadlock > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, buyitian wrote: > > Could you please use a mail client, which creates readable mail? > > > this patch is to prevent deadlock between rq->lock and > > logbuf_lock. i can understand this thanks to Rabin. 2. in patch > > 07354eb1a74d1e1ece29f8bafe0b46e8c77a95ef, Thomas did changes as > > below, which reverted the change from peter, i don't know why: in > > function console_trylock_for_printk(): > > > - spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock); > > if (wake) > > up(&console_sem); > > + raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock); > > > and this change exists in the latest kernel source code. it seems > > that deadlock bewteen rq->lock and logbuf_lock comes back, who can > > explain this, thanks. BTW: if i place printk inside schedule(), i > > may get rq->lock before calling printk. > > That looks like a merge slipup. The patch which converts the lock is > not supposed to do any other changes. But the patch was based on an > older kernel version, which did not have Peters changes yet. So the > fixup of the not longer applying patch failed somehow. i will provide patch, thanks for your reply. > > Thanks, > > tglx |
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
