[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drm/nouveau: add lockdep annotations

Op 05-02-13 21:52, Ben Skeggs schreef:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 10:59:28PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Op 04-02-13 22:30, Marcin Slusarz schreef:
>>> 1) Lockdep thinks all nouveau subdevs belong to the same class and can be
>>> locked in arbitrary order, which is not true (at least in general case).
>>> Tell it to distinguish subdevs by (o)class type.
>> Apart from this specific case, is there any other reason why we require being able to nest 2 subdev locks?
> I think I tend to prefer Marcin's fix for this actually. The subdev's
> are completely separate classes of objects and as interaction between
> them increases (PM will be very much like this), we may very well
> require holding multiple subdev mutexes at once.
> Ben.
Depends, I think for this specific example I think my cleanup is better.

For the generic case you could use nested mutexes, which will give you a
different lockdep class when you need it. It's probably better to have those
cases where you do need to nest locking annotated:

mutex_lock_nested(&mutex, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);

See also Documentation/lockdep-design.txt


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-07 18:46    [W:0.096 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site