Messages in this thread | | | From | Dawson Engler <> | Subject | Re: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks | Date | Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:25:42 -0800 (PST) |
| |
> Dawson Engler <engler@csl.stanford.edu> wrote: > > > > BTW, are there known deadlocks (harmless or otherwise)? Debugging > > the checker is a bit hard since false negatives are silent... > > Known deadlocks tend to get fixed. But I am surprised that you did not > encounter more of them.
;-)
I sent out a *very* small subset of the checker's output. There are hundreds of messages. I wanted to check on validity before flooding people.
> btw, the filesystem transaction operations can be treated as sleeping locks. > So for ext3, journal_start()/journal_stop() may, for lock-ranking purposes, > be treated in the same way as taking and releasing a per-superblock > semaphore. Other filesystems probably have similar restrictions. > > Other such "hidden" sleeping locks are lock_sock() and wait_on_inode(). The > latter is rather messy because there is no clear API function which sets > I_LOCK. > > And pte_chain_lock() is a custom spinlock.
Good deal. Thanks for the pointers, I was missing all of these besides lock_sock.
One nice thing is that the race detector has been OK at pointing out when a locking function is missing from our list.
Dawson - 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/
| |