Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 2 Mar 2003 21:25:00 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks |
| |
Dawson Engler <engler@csl.stanford.edu> wrote: > > Any feedback on the results would be great. My understanding of linux's > sprawling locking rules is less than impressive.
We would be impressed if it wasn't :)
> Also, if there are > known deadlocks, let me know and I can make sure we're finding them.
There are some real ones there. The ones surrounding lock_kernel() and semaphores are false positives.
lock_kernel() is special, in that the lock is dropped when the caller performs a voluntary context switch. So there are no ordering requirements between lock_kernel and the sleeping locks down(), down_read(), down_write().
lock_kernel() inside a spinlock is not necessarily a bug, but almost always is. It should be warned about.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |