Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S932237AbWE3KeO@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932237AbWE3KeO (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Tue, 30 May 2006 06:34:14 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932238AbWE3KeO
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 30 May 2006 06:34:14 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51865 "EHLO mx2.suse.de")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932237AbWE3KeO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 30 May 2006 06:34:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:34:12 +0200
Message-ID: <s5h8xojdcnv.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: "Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com>, mingo@elte.hu,
       perex@suse.cz, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc4-mm3-lockdep BUG: possible deadlock detected!
In-Reply-To: <20060529114749.ba020660.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <6bffcb0e0605291132u701cd69tb855cf60fa317994@mail.gmail.com>
	<20060529114749.ba020660.akpm@osdl.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.12.0 (Your Wildest Dreams) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.7 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Sanj=F2?=) APEL/10.6 MULE XEmacs/21.5 (beta25)
 (eggplant) (+CVS-20060326) (i386-suse-linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1999
Lines: 64

At Mon, 29 May 2006 11:47:49 -0700,
Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 20:32:47 +0200
> "Michal Piotrowski" <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I get this with Ingo's lockdep patch from
> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/generic-irq-subsystem/
> > 
> > ====================================
> > [ BUG: possible deadlock detected! ]
> > ------------------------------------
> > modprobe/592 is trying to acquire lock:
> >  (&grp->list_mutex){----}, at: [<fd9ee555>]
> > snd_seq_port_connect+0xc0/0x337 [snd_seq]
> > 
> > but task is already holding lock:
> >  (&grp->list_mutex){----}, at: [<fd9ee4fb>]
> > snd_seq_port_connect+0x66/0x337 [snd_seq]
> > 
> > which could potentially lead to deadlocks!
> > 
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > 1 locks held by modprobe/592:
> >  #0:  (&grp->list_mutex){----}, at: [<fd9ee4fb>]
> > snd_seq_port_connect+0x66/0x337 [snd_seq]
> 
> yes,
> 
>         down_write(&src->list_mutex);
>         down_write(&dest->list_mutex);
> 
> I wonder if there's anything which prevents another task from concurrently
> coming in and trying to perform the opposite connection and causing a
> deadlock.

I'm not 100% sure but I don't think the deadlock occurs because the
object has actually two locks, namely,

	port.c_src.list_mutex
	port.c_dst.list_mutex

so the above is equivalent with

	down(port_A.c_src.list_mutex);
	down(port_B.c_dst.list_mutex);

When the opposite connection is performed concurrently, different
locks are taken:

	down(port_B.c_src.list_mutex);
	down(port_A.c_dst.list_mutex);

In the code, there is another place that using down_write() (in
clear_subscriber_list()), but it's already after closing accesses to
that port, hence there can be no race there.


Takashi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/