[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1197147016.6353.53.camel@lappy>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:50:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <dgc@....com>
Subject: Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 21:33 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
> Which problems? I did not see any special things, it looked rather
> straight forward. What have I overlooked?
On suspend it locks the whole device tree, this means it has 'unbounded'
nesting and holds an 'unbounded' number of locks. Neither things are
easy to annotate (remember that mutex_lock_nested can handle up to 8
nestings and current->held_locks has a max of 30).
In fact, converting this will be the hardest part, it would require
reworking the locking and introduction of a hard limit on the device
tree depth - this might upset some people, but I suspect that 16 or 24
should be deep enough for pretty much anything. Of course, if people
prove me wrong, I'll have to reconsider. The up-side of the locking
scheme I'm thinking of will be that locking the whole tree will only
take 'depth' number of opterations vs the total number of tree elements.
--
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