public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Need lockdep help
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:36:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071203103630.GB2429@ff.dom.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0712021430140.4185-100000@netrider.rowland.org>

On 02-12-2007 20:45, Alan Stern wrote:
> Ingo:
> 
> I ran into a lockdep reporting issue just now with some new code under 
> development.  I think it's a false positive; the question is how best 
> to deal with it.
> 
> Here's the situation.  The new code runs during a system sleep (i.e., 
> suspend or hibernation).  Certain activities have to be deferred during 
> a system sleep, so I defined an rwsem: system_sleep_in_progress_rwsem.
> 
> Subroutines carrying out these activities acquire a read lock on the
> rwsem, so normally they proceed with no hindrance.  During a sleep
> transition, I acquire a write lock -- this is done via a PM-notifier
> callout routine.  That is, during a PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE or
> PM_SUSPEND_PREPARE notification the routine does down_write(), and
> during a PM_POST_HIBERNATION or PM_POST_SUSPEND notification the
> routine does up_write().
> 
> The problem is that the notifier chain itself is under the control of 
> an rwsem (to prevent the chain from being modified while it is in use).  
> The resulting actions look like this:
> 
> System sleep start:
> 		down_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
> 		call the notifier routine
> 			down_write(&system_sleep_in_progress_rwsem);
> 		up_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
> 
> System sleep end:
> 		down_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
> 		call the notifier routine
> 			up_write(&system_sleep_in_progress_rwsem);
> 		up_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
> 
> This creates a lockdep violation; each rwsem in turn is locked while 
> the other is being held.  However the only way this could lead to 
> deadlock would be if there was already a bug in the system Power 
> Management code (overlapping notifications).

Actually, IMHO, there is no reason for any lockdep violation:

thread #1: has down_read(A); waits for #2 to down_write(B)
thread #2: has down_write(B); never waits for #1 to down_read(A)

So, deadlock isn't possible here. If lockdep reports something else it
should be fixed (and you'd be right to omit lockdep until this is
done).

Regards,
Jarek P.

PS: Peter Zijlstra added to CC

  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-12-03 10:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-12-02 19:45 Need lockdep help Alan Stern
2007-12-02 20:04 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-12-02 20:08   ` Alan Stern
2007-12-03 10:36 ` Jarek Poplawski [this message]
2007-12-03 15:08   ` Alan Stern
2007-12-03 23:25     ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-12-04 15:17       ` Alan Stern
2007-12-04 19:02         ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-12-04 19:28           ` Alan Stern
2007-12-04 20:14             ` Jarek Poplawski
2007-12-04 21:00         ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20071203103630.GB2429@ff.dom.local \
    --to=jarkao2@o2.pl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox