[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 17:27:56 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"lkml," <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...ibm.com>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] fixup pi_state in futex_requeue on lock steal
* Darren Hart <dvhltc@...ibm.com> wrote:
> So, I think we're fine with respect to the pi_state ownership! In
> fact I finally managed to catch the lock steal in the requeue loop
> in my tracing, and everything worked fine. Going to go rerun a
> bunch more tests and see if I hit any other issues, if I do, I
> suspect they are unrelated to this.
>
> Thanks for the help in thinking this through.
i've got these queued up:
00235fe: futex: Update woken requeued futex_q lock_ptr
1bbf208: rtmutex: Avoid deadlock in rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock()
should i drop them?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists