linux-wireless.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Locking problem reported for mainline
@ 2011-01-10  5:03 Larry Finger
  2011-01-10 16:06 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
  2011-01-10 18:13 ` Christian Lamparter
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Larry Finger @ 2011-01-10  5:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: wireless

I have updated my "Linus" tree to the latest state as of Jan. 9, 2011. Uname -r
reports

2.6.37-Linus-03737-g0c21e3a-dirty

The logged messages are listed below.

Thanks,

Larry

=======================================================================

[   25.660371] =================================
[   25.660376] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
[   25.660379] 2.6.37-Linus-03737-g0c21e3a-dirty #251
[   25.660382] ---------------------------------
[   25.660384] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
[   25.660388] kworker/0:0/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
[   25.660390]  (&(&list->lock)->rlock#5){?.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812a2746>]
skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
[   25.660401] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
[   25.660403]   [<ffffffff8107f305>] __lock_acquire+0xb25/0x1cc0
[   25.660409]   [<ffffffff81080a73>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x130
[   25.660413]   [<ffffffff813446cc>] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
[   25.660418]   [<ffffffffa02b3777>] ieee80211_rx_handlers+0x27/0x1c80 [mac80211]
[   25.660444]   [<ffffffffa02b5608>]
ieee80211_prepare_and_rx_handle+0x238/0x900 [mac80211]
[   25.660455]   [<ffffffffa02b5fea>] ieee80211_rx+0x31a/0x940 [mac80211]
[   25.660465]   [<ffffffffa029cd51>] ieee80211_tasklet_handler+0xc1/0xd0 [mac80211]
[   25.660474]   [<ffffffff8104f993>] tasklet_action+0x73/0x120
[   25.660479]   [<ffffffff8105048e>] __do_softirq+0xce/0x200
[   25.660483]   [<ffffffff81003ccc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
[   25.660488]   [<ffffffff81005e25>] do_softirq+0x85/0xc0
[   25.660492]   [<ffffffff810506cd>] irq_exit+0x8d/0xa0
[   25.660496]   [<ffffffff81005971>] do_IRQ+0x61/0xe0
[   25.660500]   [<ffffffff813452d3>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xf
[   25.660504]   [<ffffffff81179cd7>] sysfs_permission+0x47/0x80
[   25.660510]   [<ffffffff81126bfa>] link_path_walk+0x1ea/0xdb0
[   25.660515]   [<ffffffff81127568>] link_path_walk+0xb58/0xdb0
[   25.660519]   [<ffffffff81127ab6>] do_path_lookup+0x56/0x130
[   25.660523]   [<ffffffff81127f92>] user_path_at+0x52/0xa0
[   25.660526]   [<ffffffff8111e634>] vfs_fstatat+0x34/0x70
[   25.660532]   [<ffffffff8111e6a6>] vfs_stat+0x16/0x20
[   25.660536]   [<ffffffff8111ea4f>] sys_newstat+0x1f/0x40
[   25.660540]   [<ffffffff81002d7b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[   25.660546] irq event stamp: 393974
[   25.660548] hardirqs last  enabled at (393971): [<ffffffff8100c03a>]
default_idle+0x5a/0xf0
[   25.660553] hardirqs last disabled at (393972): [<ffffffff81345227>]
save_args+0x67/0x70
[   25.660557] softirqs last  enabled at (393974): [<ffffffff810501de>]
_local_bh_enable+0xe/0x10
[   25.660562] softirqs last disabled at (393973): [<ffffffff8105062d>]
irq_enter+0x6d/0x80
[   25.660566]
[   25.660567] other info that might help us debug this:
[   25.660570] 1 lock held by kworker/0:0/0:
[   25.660572]  #0:  (&(&rtlpriv->locks.irq_th_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at:
[<ffffffffa02f0daf>] _rtl_pci_interrupt+0x5f/0x890 [rtlwifi]
[   25.660585]
[   25.660586] stack backtrace:
[   25.660589] Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:0 Tainted: G        W
2.6.37-Linus-03737-g0c21e3a-dirty #251
[   25.660592] Call Trace:
[   25.660594]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff8107e152>] ? print_usage_bug+0x182/0x1d0
[   25.660601]  [<ffffffff8107e571>] ? mark_lock+0x3d1/0x640
[   25.660605]  [<ffffffff8107f3bd>] ? __lock_acquire+0xbdd/0x1cc0
[   25.660610]  [<ffffffff811d2aae>] ? check_unmap+0x3be/0x7e0
[   25.660615]  [<ffffffff8107bc2d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0x10
[   25.660619]  [<ffffffff81080a73>] ? lock_acquire+0x93/0x130
[   25.660622]  [<ffffffff812a2746>] ? skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
[   25.660627]  [<ffffffff810af978>] ? rcu_start_gp+0x258/0x350
[   25.660630]  [<ffffffff813447cc>] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x60
[   25.660634]  [<ffffffff812a2746>] ? skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
[   25.660637]  [<ffffffff812a2746>] ? skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
[   25.660647]  [<ffffffffa029e166>] ? ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe+0x36/0xb0
[mac80211]
[   25.660653]  [<ffffffffa02f0b90>] ? _rtl_pci_tx_isr+0x180/0x340 [rtlwifi]
[   25.660659]  [<ffffffffa02f0e75>] ? _rtl_pci_interrupt+0x125/0x890 [rtlwifi]
[   25.660665]  [<ffffffff810ab299>] ? handle_IRQ_event+0x49/0x170
[   25.660670]  [<ffffffff810ada52>] ? handle_fasteoi_irq+0x92/0x110
[   25.660674]  [<ffffffff81005d44>] ? handle_irq+0x44/0xa0
[   25.660677]  [<ffffffff81005968>] ? do_IRQ+0x58/0xe0
[   25.660681]  [<ffffffff813452d3>] ? ret_from_intr+0x0/0xf
[   25.660683]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff8100c03c>] ? default_idle+0x5c/0xf0
[   25.660690]  [<ffffffff8100c03a>] ? default_idle+0x5a/0xf0
[   25.660694]  [<ffffffff8100c124>] ? c1e_idle+0x54/0x100
[   25.660698]  [<ffffffff810011eb>] ? cpu_idle+0x5b/0x120
[   25.660703]  [<ffffffff8133dd72>] ? start_secondary+0x190/0x194

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Locking problem reported for mainline
  2011-01-10  5:03 Locking problem reported for mainline Larry Finger
@ 2011-01-10 16:06 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
  2011-01-10 18:13 ` Christian Lamparter
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Stanislaw Gruszka @ 2011-01-10 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry Finger; +Cc: wireless

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 11:03:05PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> I have updated my "Linus" tree to the latest state as of Jan. 9, 2011. Uname -r
> reports
> 
> 2.6.37-Linus-03737-g0c21e3a-dirty
> 
> The logged messages are listed below.

I think this is a false positive, because for lockdep
local->rx_skb_queue->lock and local->skb_queue->lock
is the same lock (struct sk_buff_head->lock). Hence warn when we do
not spin_lock_irq in ieee80211_rx_handlers(), but take lock
from interrupt handler in ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe()-> skb_queue_tail()

Stanislaw

> =======================================================================
> 
> [   25.660371] =================================
> [   25.660376] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> [   25.660379] 2.6.37-Linus-03737-g0c21e3a-dirty #251
> [   25.660382] ---------------------------------
> [   25.660384] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
> [   25.660388] kworker/0:0/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
> [   25.660390]  (&(&list->lock)->rlock#5){?.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812a2746>]
> skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
> [   25.660401] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> [   25.660403]   [<ffffffff8107f305>] __lock_acquire+0xb25/0x1cc0
> [   25.660409]   [<ffffffff81080a73>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x130
> [   25.660413]   [<ffffffff813446cc>] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> [   25.660418]   [<ffffffffa02b3777>] ieee80211_rx_handlers+0x27/0x1c80 [mac80211]
> [   25.660444]   [<ffffffffa02b5608>]
> ieee80211_prepare_and_rx_handle+0x238/0x900 [mac80211]
> [   25.660455]   [<ffffffffa02b5fea>] ieee80211_rx+0x31a/0x940 [mac80211]
> [   25.660465]   [<ffffffffa029cd51>] ieee80211_tasklet_handler+0xc1/0xd0 [mac80211]
> [   25.660474]   [<ffffffff8104f993>] tasklet_action+0x73/0x120
> [   25.660479]   [<ffffffff8105048e>] __do_softirq+0xce/0x200
> [   25.660483]   [<ffffffff81003ccc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30
> [   25.660488]   [<ffffffff81005e25>] do_softirq+0x85/0xc0
> [   25.660492]   [<ffffffff810506cd>] irq_exit+0x8d/0xa0
> [   25.660496]   [<ffffffff81005971>] do_IRQ+0x61/0xe0
> [   25.660500]   [<ffffffff813452d3>] ret_from_intr+0x0/0xf
> [   25.660504]   [<ffffffff81179cd7>] sysfs_permission+0x47/0x80
> [   25.660510]   [<ffffffff81126bfa>] link_path_walk+0x1ea/0xdb0
> [   25.660515]   [<ffffffff81127568>] link_path_walk+0xb58/0xdb0
> [   25.660519]   [<ffffffff81127ab6>] do_path_lookup+0x56/0x130
> [   25.660523]   [<ffffffff81127f92>] user_path_at+0x52/0xa0
> [   25.660526]   [<ffffffff8111e634>] vfs_fstatat+0x34/0x70
> [   25.660532]   [<ffffffff8111e6a6>] vfs_stat+0x16/0x20
> [   25.660536]   [<ffffffff8111ea4f>] sys_newstat+0x1f/0x40
> [   25.660540]   [<ffffffff81002d7b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [   25.660546] irq event stamp: 393974
> [   25.660548] hardirqs last  enabled at (393971): [<ffffffff8100c03a>]
> default_idle+0x5a/0xf0
> [   25.660553] hardirqs last disabled at (393972): [<ffffffff81345227>]
> save_args+0x67/0x70
> [   25.660557] softirqs last  enabled at (393974): [<ffffffff810501de>]
> _local_bh_enable+0xe/0x10
> [   25.660562] softirqs last disabled at (393973): [<ffffffff8105062d>]
> irq_enter+0x6d/0x80
> [   25.660566]
> [   25.660567] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   25.660570] 1 lock held by kworker/0:0/0:
> [   25.660572]  #0:  (&(&rtlpriv->locks.irq_th_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at:
> [<ffffffffa02f0daf>] _rtl_pci_interrupt+0x5f/0x890 [rtlwifi]
> [   25.660585]
> [   25.660586] stack backtrace:
> [   25.660589] Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:0 Tainted: G        W
> 2.6.37-Linus-03737-g0c21e3a-dirty #251
> [   25.660592] Call Trace:
> [   25.660594]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff8107e152>] ? print_usage_bug+0x182/0x1d0
> [   25.660601]  [<ffffffff8107e571>] ? mark_lock+0x3d1/0x640
> [   25.660605]  [<ffffffff8107f3bd>] ? __lock_acquire+0xbdd/0x1cc0
> [   25.660610]  [<ffffffff811d2aae>] ? check_unmap+0x3be/0x7e0
> [   25.660615]  [<ffffffff8107bc2d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0x10
> [   25.660619]  [<ffffffff81080a73>] ? lock_acquire+0x93/0x130
> [   25.660622]  [<ffffffff812a2746>] ? skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
> [   25.660627]  [<ffffffff810af978>] ? rcu_start_gp+0x258/0x350
> [   25.660630]  [<ffffffff813447cc>] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x60
> [   25.660634]  [<ffffffff812a2746>] ? skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
> [   25.660637]  [<ffffffff812a2746>] ? skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
> [   25.660647]  [<ffffffffa029e166>] ? ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe+0x36/0xb0
> [mac80211]
> [   25.660653]  [<ffffffffa02f0b90>] ? _rtl_pci_tx_isr+0x180/0x340 [rtlwifi]
> [   25.660659]  [<ffffffffa02f0e75>] ? _rtl_pci_interrupt+0x125/0x890 [rtlwifi]
> [   25.660665]  [<ffffffff810ab299>] ? handle_IRQ_event+0x49/0x170
> [   25.660670]  [<ffffffff810ada52>] ? handle_fasteoi_irq+0x92/0x110
> [   25.660674]  [<ffffffff81005d44>] ? handle_irq+0x44/0xa0
> [   25.660677]  [<ffffffff81005968>] ? do_IRQ+0x58/0xe0
> [   25.660681]  [<ffffffff813452d3>] ? ret_from_intr+0x0/0xf
> [   25.660683]  <EOI>  [<ffffffff8100c03c>] ? default_idle+0x5c/0xf0
> [   25.660690]  [<ffffffff8100c03a>] ? default_idle+0x5a/0xf0
> [   25.660694]  [<ffffffff8100c124>] ? c1e_idle+0x54/0x100
> [   25.660698]  [<ffffffff810011eb>] ? cpu_idle+0x5b/0x120
> [   25.660703]  [<ffffffff8133dd72>] ? start_secondary+0x190/0x194
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Locking problem reported for mainline
  2011-01-10  5:03 Locking problem reported for mainline Larry Finger
  2011-01-10 16:06 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
@ 2011-01-10 18:13 ` Christian Lamparter
  2011-01-10 19:11   ` Larry Finger
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Lamparter @ 2011-01-10 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry Finger; +Cc: wireless

On Monday 10 January 2011 06:03:05 Larry Finger wrote:
> I have updated my "Linus" tree to the latest state as of Jan. 9, 2011.
> Uname -r reports
> 
> 2.6.37-Linus-03737-g0c21e3a-dirty
> 
> The logged messages are listed below.
> 
> [   25.660371] =================================
> [   25.660376] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> [   25.660379] 2.6.37-Linus-03737-g0c21e3a-dirty #251
> [   25.660382] ---------------------------------
> [   25.660384] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
> [   25.660388] kworker/0:0/0 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
> [   25.660390]  (&(&list->lock)->rlock#5){?.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812a2746>]
> skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
> [   25.660401] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> [   25.660403]   [<ffffffff8107f305>] __lock_acquire+0xb25/0x1cc0
> [   25.660409]   [<ffffffff81080a73>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x130
> [   25.660413]   [<ffffffff813446cc>] _raw_spin_lock+0x2c/0x40
> [   25.660418]   [<ffffffffa02b3777>] ieee80211_rx_handlers+0x27/0x1c80 [mac80211]
> [   25.660444]   [<ffffffffa02b5608>]
> ieee80211_prepare_and_rx_handle+0x238/0x900 [mac80211]
> [   25.660455]   [<ffffffffa02b5fea>] ieee80211_rx+0x31a/0x940 [mac80211]
> [   25.660465]   [<ffffffffa029cd51>] ieee80211_tasklet_handler+0xc1/0xd0 [mac80211]
> [   25.660474]   [<ffffffff8104f993>] tasklet_action+0x73/0x120
> [   25.660479]   [<ffffffff8105048e>] __do_softirq+0xce/0x200
> [   25.660546] irq event stamp: 393974
> [   25.660548] hardirqs last  enabled at (393971): [<ffffffff8100c03a>]
> default_idle+0x5a/0xf0
> [   25.660553] hardirqs last disabled at (393972): [<ffffffff81345227>]
> save_args+0x67/0x70
> [   25.660557] softirqs last  enabled at (393974): [<ffffffff810501de>]
> _local_bh_enable+0xe/0x10
> [   25.660562] softirqs last disabled at (393973): [<ffffffff8105062d>]
> irq_enter+0x6d/0x80
> [   25.660566]
> [   25.660567] other info that might help us debug this:
> [   25.660570] 1 lock held by kworker/0:0/0:
> [   25.660572]  #0:  (&(&rtlpriv->locks.irq_th_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at:
> [<ffffffffa02f0daf>] _rtl_pci_interrupt+0x5f/0x890 [rtlwifi]
> [   25.660585]
> [   25.660586] stack backtrace:
> [   25.660589] Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:0 Tainted: G        W
> 2.6.37-Linus-03737-g0c21e3a-dirty #251
> [   25.660592] Call Trace:
> [   25.660594]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff8107e152>] ? print_usage_bug+0x182/0x1d0
> [   25.660601]  [<ffffffff8107e571>] ? mark_lock+0x3d1/0x640
> [   25.660605]  [<ffffffff8107f3bd>] ? __lock_acquire+0xbdd/0x1cc0
> [   25.660610]  [<ffffffff811d2aae>] ? check_unmap+0x3be/0x7e0
> [   25.660615]  [<ffffffff8107bc2d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0x10
> [   25.660619]  [<ffffffff81080a73>] ? lock_acquire+0x93/0x130
> [   25.660622]  [<ffffffff812a2746>] ? skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
> [   25.660627]  [<ffffffff810af978>] ? rcu_start_gp+0x258/0x350
> [   25.660630]  [<ffffffff813447cc>] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x60
> [   25.660634]  [<ffffffff812a2746>] ? skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
> [   25.660637]  [<ffffffff812a2746>] ? skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
> [   25.660647]  [<ffffffffa029e166>] ? ieee80211_tx_status_irqsafe+0x36/0xb0
> [mac80211]
> [   25.660653]  [<ffffffffa02f0b90>] ? _rtl_pci_tx_isr+0x180/0x340 [rtlwifi]
> [   25.660659]  [<ffffffffa02f0e75>] ? _rtl_pci_interrupt+0x125/0x890 [rtlwifi]
Does this patch help?

---
diff --git a/net/mac80211/rx.c b/net/mac80211/rx.c
index a6701ed..8f13a83 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/rx.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/rx.c
@@ -549,7 +549,9 @@ static void ieee80211_release_reorder_frame(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
 	tid_agg_rx->reorder_buf[index] = NULL;
 	status = IEEE80211_SKB_RXCB(skb);
 	status->rx_flags |= IEEE80211_RX_DEFERRED_RELEASE;
-	skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
+	spin_lock(&rx->local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
+	__skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
+	spin_unlock(&rx->local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
 
 no_frame:
 	tid_agg_rx->head_seq_num = seq_inc(tid_agg_rx->head_seq_num);
@@ -780,7 +782,9 @@ static void ieee80211_rx_reorder_ampdu(struct ieee80211_rx_data *rx)
 		return;
 
  dont_reorder:
-	skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
+	spin_lock(&rx->local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
+	__skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
+	spin_unlock(&rx->local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
 }
 
 static ieee80211_rx_result debug_noinline



^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Locking problem reported for mainline
  2011-01-10 18:13 ` Christian Lamparter
@ 2011-01-10 19:11   ` Larry Finger
  2011-01-10 19:18     ` Christian Lamparter
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Larry Finger @ 2011-01-10 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christian Lamparter; +Cc: wireless

On 01/10/2011 12:13 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> Does this patch help?
> 
> ---
> diff --git a/net/mac80211/rx.c b/net/mac80211/rx.c
> index a6701ed..8f13a83 100644
> --- a/net/mac80211/rx.c
> +++ b/net/mac80211/rx.c
> @@ -549,7 +549,9 @@ static void ieee80211_release_reorder_frame(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
>  	tid_agg_rx->reorder_buf[index] = NULL;
>  	status = IEEE80211_SKB_RXCB(skb);
>  	status->rx_flags |= IEEE80211_RX_DEFERRED_RELEASE;
> -	skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
> +	spin_lock(&rx->local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
> +	__skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
> +	spin_unlock(&rx->local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
>  
>  no_frame:
>  	tid_agg_rx->head_seq_num = seq_inc(tid_agg_rx->head_seq_num);
> @@ -780,7 +782,9 @@ static void ieee80211_rx_reorder_ampdu(struct ieee80211_rx_data *rx)
>  		return;
>  
>   dont_reorder:spin_lock(&rx->local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
> -	skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
> +	spin_lock(&rx->local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
> +	__skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
> +	spin_unlock(&rx->local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
>  }
>  
>  static ieee80211_rx_result debug_noinline

Did not compile. In ieee80211_release_reorder_frame at lines 552 and 554, rx is
not defined.

Larry

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Locking problem reported for mainline
  2011-01-10 19:11   ` Larry Finger
@ 2011-01-10 19:18     ` Christian Lamparter
  2011-01-11 16:31       ` Larry Finger
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Christian Lamparter @ 2011-01-10 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry Finger; +Cc: wireless

On Monday 10 January 2011 20:11:38 Larry Finger wrote:
> On 01/10/2011 12:13 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > Does this patch help?
> > 
> > ---
> > diff --git a/net/mac80211/rx.c b/net/mac80211/rx.c
> > index a6701ed..8f13a83 100644
> > --- a/net/mac80211/rx.c
> > +++ b/net/mac80211/rx.c
> 
> Did not compile. In ieee80211_release_reorder_frame at lines 552 and 554, rx is
> not defined.
> 
Oops,

you are right. Fixed the copy&paste error, so this one should compile.
---
diff --git a/net/mac80211/rx.c b/net/mac80211/rx.c
index a6701ed..936b932 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/rx.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/rx.c
@@ -549,7 +549,9 @@ static void ieee80211_release_reorder_frame(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
 	tid_agg_rx->reorder_buf[index] = NULL;
 	status = IEEE80211_SKB_RXCB(skb);
 	status->rx_flags |= IEEE80211_RX_DEFERRED_RELEASE;
-	skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
+	spin_lock(&local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
+	__skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
+	spin_unlock(&local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
 
 no_frame:
 	tid_agg_rx->head_seq_num = seq_inc(tid_agg_rx->head_seq_num);
@@ -780,7 +782,9 @@ static void ieee80211_rx_reorder_ampdu(struct ieee80211_rx_data *rx)
 		return;
 
  dont_reorder:
-	skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
+	spin_lock(&local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
+	__skb_queue_tail(&local->rx_skb_queue, skb);
+	spin_unlock(&local->rx_skb_queue.lock);
 }
 
 static ieee80211_rx_result debug_noinline

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Locking problem reported for mainline
  2011-01-10 19:18     ` Christian Lamparter
@ 2011-01-11 16:31       ` Larry Finger
  2011-01-11 19:45         ` Bob Copeland
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Larry Finger @ 2011-01-11 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Christian Lamparter; +Cc: wireless

On 01/10/2011 01:18 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> On Monday 10 January 2011 20:11:38 Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 01/10/2011 12:13 PM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>>> Does this patch help?
>>>
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/net/mac80211/rx.c b/net/mac80211/rx.c
>>> index a6701ed..8f13a83 100644
>>> --- a/net/mac80211/rx.c
>>> +++ b/net/mac80211/rx.c
>>
>> Did not compile. In ieee80211_release_reorder_frame at lines 552 and 554, rx is
>> not defined.
>>
> Oops,
> 
> you are right. Fixed the copy&paste error, so this one should compile.

No, the patch did not help.

Is there a document that explains what the meaning of these semantics?

inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
kdostartupconfi/3502 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
 (&(&list->lock)->rlock#5){?.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812995c6>]
skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
{HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
...

It appears that the problem is with rtlwifi, thus I need to sort it out. Google
has not been my friend in this case.

Thanks,

Larry


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Locking problem reported for mainline
  2011-01-11 16:31       ` Larry Finger
@ 2011-01-11 19:45         ` Bob Copeland
  2011-01-11 20:52           ` Larry Finger
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Bob Copeland @ 2011-01-11 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry Finger; +Cc: Christian Lamparter, wireless

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Larry Finger
<Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote:
> Is there a document that explains what the meaning of these semantics?
>
> inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
> kdostartupconfi/3502 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
>  (&(&list->lock)->rlock#5){?.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812995c6>]
> skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:

I'm not sure about all the HC1[1]:SC0[0] etc stuff, but check out
Documentation/lockdep-design.txt for the basics.

In this case, someone took a lock with interrupts enabled (HARDIRQ-ON-W)
while someone else took it in a hard IRQ context (IN-HARDIRQ-W) where
they are normally disabled.  The problem of course is:

cpu0:
spin_lock(&foo);
do some stuff protected by foo;

----> interrupt happens here
   spin_lock(&foo);  /* darn, deadlock! */
   other stuff;
   spin_unlock(&foo);
<----

spin_unlock(&foo);

Could be a missing _irqsave() if it's not, as Stanislaw suggested, a false
positive.

-- 
Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Locking problem reported for mainline
  2011-01-11 19:45         ` Bob Copeland
@ 2011-01-11 20:52           ` Larry Finger
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Larry Finger @ 2011-01-11 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bob Copeland; +Cc: Christian Lamparter, wireless

On 01/11/2011 01:45 PM, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Larry Finger
> <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> wrote:
>> Is there a document that explains what the meaning of these semantics?
>>
>> inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage.
>> kdostartupconfi/3502 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes:
>>  (&(&list->lock)->rlock#5){?.-...}, at: [<ffffffff812995c6>]
>> skb_queue_tail+0x26/0x60
>> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> 
> I'm not sure about all the HC1[1]:SC0[0] etc stuff, but check out
> Documentation/lockdep-design.txt for the basics.

That one I had read.

> In this case, someone took a lock with interrupts enabled (HARDIRQ-ON-W)
> while someone else took it in a hard IRQ context (IN-HARDIRQ-W) where
> they are normally disabled.  The problem of course is:
> 
> cpu0:
> spin_lock(&foo);
> do some stuff protected by foo;
> 
> ----> interrupt happens here
>    spin_lock(&foo);  /* darn, deadlock! */
>    other stuff;
>    spin_unlock(&foo);
> <----
> 
> spin_unlock(&foo);
> 
> Could be a missing _irqsave() if it's not, as Stanislaw suggested, a false
> positive.

I suspected the message meant mixed interrupts disabled/enabled, but thanks for
the confirmation.

Thanks,

Larry

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2011-01-11 20:52 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-01-10  5:03 Locking problem reported for mainline Larry Finger
2011-01-10 16:06 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2011-01-10 18:13 ` Christian Lamparter
2011-01-10 19:11   ` Larry Finger
2011-01-10 19:18     ` Christian Lamparter
2011-01-11 16:31       ` Larry Finger
2011-01-11 19:45         ` Bob Copeland
2011-01-11 20:52           ` Larry Finger

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).