[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070705085304.GC3476@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:53:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Sattler <tsattler@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debug work struct cancel deadlocks with lockdep
* Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net> wrote:
> This adds a lockdep_map for each work struct in order to debug
> deadlocks like
> my_function -> lock(); ...; cancel_work_sync(my_work)
> vs.
> run_workqueue() -> my_work.f() -> ...; lock(); ...
>
> which will deadlock if my_work.f() is invoked already but my_function()
> has acquired the lock already.
>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> +/*
> + * HACK! This really should call lockdep_init_map() but can't
> + * because there's no requirement to initialise work structs
> + * at runtime. This works because subclass == 0.
> + *
> + * NB: because we have to copy the lockdep_map, setting .key
> + * here is required!
> + */
why do you consider this a hack? A static object is a static object, and
its own address is its key. That's what we have for like 80% of all the
spinlocks in the kernel. Static initialization is not as flexible as
dynamic initialization, but the lockdep engine handles it. Am i missing
something?
> +#define __WORK_INIT_LOCKDEP_MAP(n, k) \
> + .lockdep_map = { \
> + .name = n, \
> + .key = (void*) k, \
> + },
s/void*/void *
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