[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803131124220.17196@blonde.site>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:25:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] lockdep vs recursive read locks
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> We seemed to have some lockdep trouble wrt recursive read locks. Today Gautham
> asked me some specific questions about it, which led to these patches.
>
> IIRC Hugh ran into something similar a while back. This hopefully fixes it.
Hmm, I don't remember that myself: can you jog my memory?
What I do remember is that when I fixed madvise(MADV_REMOVE i.e. holepunch)
not to hold mmap_sem (at that time down_write but today down_read, though
would still be bad) across vmtruncate_range which takes i_mutex (contrast
writing from an unfaulted area that takes i_mutex then down_read mmap_sem),
Ingo asked me offline if lockdep caught that and it didn't. Just tried
again now, with your patches applied, and madvise_remove restored to its
old misbehaviour, and it looks like lockdep still doesn't catch it
(but suspect me of pilot error if you find otherwise).
Hugh
--
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