From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Yuriy N. Shkandybin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] vlan: lockdep subclass for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:03:23 +0400 Message-ID: <049301c792c8$ecdf4c40$0202fea9@Jura> References: <200704260727.l3Q7RTxG023970@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20070426.013911.69219176.davem@davemloft.net> <20070426104950.GA3145@ff.dom.local> <20070509093536.GA2436@ff.dom.local> <001801c79275$80cd5e00$0701010a@note> <20070510053052.GA1611@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , , , To: "Jarek Poplawski" Return-path: Received: from www.netams.com ([212.192.245.10]:52049 "EHLO mail.netams.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752145AbXEJGDg (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 02:03:36 -0400 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Yes, there is no real lockup with pppoe ll repeat my configuration: vpn (pptp(mostly)+pppoe) concentrator PPPoE provided through 802.1q +OSPF (quagga) Jura ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jarek Poplawski" To: "Yuriy N. Shkandybin" Cc: ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH] vlan: lockdep subclass for ppp _xmit_lock Re: ppp_generic: fix lockdep warning > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:06:09AM +0400, Yuriy N. Shkandybin wrote: >> After applying this patch i've got this: >> >> ======================================================= >> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] >> 2.6.21-gentoo #2 >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> ospfd/3984 is trying to acquire lock: >> (&ppp->wlock){-...}, at: [] ppp_xmit_process+0x20/0x4f0 >> >> but task is already holding lock: >> (&dev->_xmit_lock){-+..}, at: [] __qdisc_run+0x88/0x1c3 >> >> which lock already depends on the new lock. > > Thanks Yuriy! > > As a matter of fact I suspected there will be something more. > Lockdep always stops working after the first warning, and you > have some very interesting (entangled) configuration, so each > fix could uncover new warnings. > > I need some time to figure out this one, so I'd try to use your > help yet... I hope it's only about lockdep warnings and there > are no real lockups. > > Best regards, > Jarek P. >