Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1753149AbYGWGPo@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753149AbYGWGPo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:15:44 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752787AbYGWGPb
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:15:31 -0400
Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.177]:5290 "EHLO
	ik-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752001AbYGWGPa (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:15:30 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type
         :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=fG/Q9SwbpTurVIL4EtSkcJh+OwK/3ArAYJ1v0FXLYmSOPsYSr61PXJcQoZ7SOUkgXx
         OvjDl79fdQQy1dLYdVjAMCWM5opy2szJtv1h7cMJbnZ65ljMe5O9574eIHu3zZuDHfNr
         ugoN0EuKAe80yEBLVrGvwbROKnCE/j4NOqGw8=
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:20:36 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, kaber@trash.net, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING: at net/core/dev.c:1330
	__netif_schedule+0x2c/0x98()
Message-ID: <20080723062036.GA4561@ff.dom.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080722.160409.216536011.davem@davemloft.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1635
Lines: 46

On 23-07-2008 01:04, David Miller wrote:
> From: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>
> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:39:08 -0500
> 
>> =============================================
>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> 2.6.26-Linus-05752-g93ded9b-dirty #53
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> b43/1997 is trying to acquire lock:
>>   (_xmit_IEEE80211#2){-...}, at: [<ffffffffa028f322>] 
>> ieee80211_scan_completed+0x130/0x2e1 [mac80211]
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>>   (_xmit_IEEE80211#2){-...}, at: [<ffffffffa028f322>] 
>> ieee80211_scan_completed+0x130/0x2e1 [mac80211]
...
> Lockdep doesn't like that we have an array of objects (the TX queues)
> and we're iterating over them grabbing all of their locks.
> 
> Does anyone know how to teach lockdep that this is OK?

I guess, David Miller knows...:

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/99784

Jarek P.

PS: if there is nothing new in lockdep the classical method would
be to change this static array:

static struct lock_class_key
netdev_xmit_lock_key[ARRAY_SIZE(netdev_lock_type)];

to

static struct lock_class_key
netdev_xmit_lock_key[ARRAY_SIZE(netdev_lock_type)][MAX_NUM_TX_QUEUES];

and set lockdep classes per queue as well. (If we are sure we don't
need lockdep subclasses anywhere this could be optimized by using
one lock_class_key per 8 queues and spin_lock_nested()).
--
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/