Re: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)

2020-11-05 Thread Andrea Righi
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:09:28AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:56:58AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > > I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below). > > > > > > > > > > Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying: > > > > > > >

Re: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)

2020-11-02 Thread Andrea Righi
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:56:58AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > > I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below). > > > > > > > > Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying: > > > > > > > > e918188611f0 ("locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()") >

Re: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)

2020-11-02 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > > > I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below). > > > > > > Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying: > > > > > > e918188611f0 ("locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()") > > > > > > It looks like a false positive to me, but it made me think a bit

Re: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)

2020-11-01 Thread Andrea Righi
On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 05:28:38PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below). > > > > Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying: > > > > e918188611f0 ("locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()") > > > > It looks like

Re: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)

2020-11-01 Thread Andrea Righi
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 06:17:40PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 10:26:14AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote: > > I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below). > > > > Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying: > > > > e918188611f0 ("lockin

Re: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)

2020-11-01 Thread Boqun Feng
Hi Andrea, On Sun, Nov 01, 2020 at 10:26:14AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote: > I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below). > > Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying: > > e918188611f0 ("locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()") > > It looks like a false po

Re: lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)

2020-11-01 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below). > > Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying: > > e918188611f0 ("locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()") > > It looks like a false positive to me, but it made me think a bit and > IIUC there can be stil

lockdep: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected (trig->leddev_list_lock)

2020-11-01 Thread Andrea Righi
I'm getting the following lockdep splat (see below). Apparently this warning starts to be reported after applying: e918188611f0 ("locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()") It looks like a false positive to me, but it made me think a bit and IIUC there can be still a potential deadloc

Re: LOCKDEP: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected

2007-05-22 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm. That's the code in question: > > void __init timekeeping_init(void) > > {

Re: LOCKDEP: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected

2007-05-22 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 17:19 -0700, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote: > swapper/1 just changed the state of lock: > > (rtc_lock#2){-...}, at: [] sbf_init+0x25/0xe0 > > but this lock was taken by another, hard-irq-safe lock in the past: