lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:08:34PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 10:46 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > > Sadly, if you get that annotation wrong you can annotate an actual
> > > > > deadlock away.
> >
> > What's a (contrived as you want) example where that happens?
>
> spinlock_t lock_array[10];
>
> void init_array(void)
> {
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(lock_array); i++)
> spin_lock_init(array + i);
> }
>
> void double_lock(int a, int b)
> {
> spin_lock(lock_array + a);
> spin_lock_nested(lock_array + b, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> }
>
> The above places all locks in the array in the same class, it then does
> a double lock without order, but tells lockdep the nesting is ok.
>
> A correct version of the double_lock() function would look like:
>
> void double_lock(int a, int b)
> {
> if (b < a)
> swap(a, b);
>
> spin_lock(lock_array + a);
> spin_lock_nested(lock_array + b, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> }
>
> This orders the locks in array order.

Got it, thanks!

--b.

>
> > > > > This the reason you have to be very careful when
> > > > > annotating stuff.
> >
> > Or alternatively--what do I need to check before I call
> > mutex_lock_nested?
>
> That the lock order you tell lockdep is ok, is indeed correct.
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-11 15:04    [W:0.061 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site