Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Jun 2004 14:27:51 +0100 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Killing POSIX deadlock detection |
| |
On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:04:22PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Here's my (contrived) example: > > Process P1 contains threads T1 and T2 > Process P2 > > I am using "process id" and "thread id" in the POSIX sense. These are > exclusive, whole file locks for simplicity. > > T1 locks file F1 -> lock (P1, F1) > P2 locks file F2 -> lock (P2, F2) > P2 locks file F1 -> blocks against (P1, F1) > T1 locks file F2 -> blocks against (P2, F2)
Less contrived example -- T2 locks file F2. We report deadlock here too, even though T1 is about to unlock file F1.
I pointed this out over a year ago when NPTL first went in and nobody seemed interested in having the discussion then. All I got was a private reply from Andi Kleen suggesting that we shouldn't remove it.
So, final call. Any objections to never returning -EDEADLCK?
-- "Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain - 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/
| |