From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754164Ab1KCAP4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:15:56 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.124]:47867 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752669Ab1KCAPx (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:15:53 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=dCTC1p3vNTdx1H6U0HtbMKjJ9bTEtPwCLJ4qOUv6lx4= c=1 sm=0 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:17 a=bCiEhsN2Qc0T3_-HhdEA:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=ZycB6UtQUfgMyuk2+PxD7w==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.80.29 Message-ID: <1320279351.4793.60.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 From: Steven Rostedt To: Simon Kirby Cc: Thomas Gleixner , David Miller , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Jones , Martin Schwidefsky , Ingo Molnar , Network Development Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 20:15:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20111103000941.GJ5971@hostway.ca> References: <1318928713.21167.4.camel@twins> <20111018182046.GF1309@hostway.ca> <20111024190203.GA24410@hostway.ca> <20111025202049.GB25043@hostway.ca> <20111031173246.GA10614@hostway.ca> <20111102221023.GA27457@home.goodmis.org> <20111102230009.GB27457@home.goodmis.org> <20111103000941.GJ5971@hostway.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 17:09 -0700, Simon Kirby wrote: > > [ 49.032008] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 49.032008] > [ 49.032008] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > [ 49.032008] > [ 49.032008] CPU0 CPU1 > [ 49.032008] ---- ---- > [ 49.032008] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET/1); > [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [ 49.039565] lock(slock-AF_INET/1); > [ 49.039565] > [ 49.039565] *** DEADLOCK *** > [ 49.039565] > Did that help? I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to see... Yes, this looks much better than what you previously showed. The added "/1" makes a world of difference. Thanks! I'll add your "Tested-by". Seems rather strange as we didn't fix the bug you are chasing, but instead fixed the output of what the bug produced ;) -- Steve