lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RT] Lockdep warning on boot with 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:45 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > The other proposal was creating a fixed list of classes and register
> > > each device at a class corresponding to its depth in the tree. I can't
> > > remember what was wrong with that, but I seem to have been persuaded
> > > that that was hard too.
> >
> > It probably would work for the most part. However a possible scenario
> > involves first locking a parent and then locking all its children. (I
> > don't know if this ever happens anywhere, but it might.) This can't
> > cause a deadlock but it would run into trouble with depth-based
> > classes.
>
> If you know which parent is locked, we can solve that with
> mutex_lock_nest_lock() [ doesn't currently exist, but is analogous to
> spin_lock_nest_lock() ] and together with
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/23/222 that would allow you to lock up to
> 2048 children.

Not only do I know not which parent is locked, I don't even know if
this ever happens anywhere at all! My point was purely theoretical.

> Would something like that work?

Perhaps -- I don't understand what spin_lock_nest_lock() is supposed to
do.

Alan Stern



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-07 23:33    [W:0.059 / U:1.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site