From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 18:10:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20111102221023.GA27457@home.goodmis.org> References: <1318879396.4172.92.camel@twins> <1318928713.21167.4.camel@twins> <20111018182046.GF1309@hostway.ca> <20111024190203.GA24410@hostway.ca> <20111025202049.GB25043@hostway.ca> <20111031173246.GA10614@hostway.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Thomas Gleixner , David Miller , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Jones , Martin Schwidefsky , Ingo Molnar , Network Development To: Simon Kirby Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111031173246.GA10614@hostway.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Thomas pointed me here. On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:32:46AM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote: > [104661.244767] > [104661.244767] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > [104661.244767] > [104661.244767] CPU0 CPU1 > [104661.244767] ---- ---- > [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [104661.244767] lock(slock-AF_INET); > [104661.244767] > [104661.244767] *** DEADLOCK *** > [104661.244767] Bah, I used the __print_lock_name() function to show the lock names in the above, which leaves off the subclass number. I'll go write up a patch that fixes that. Thanks, -- Steve