linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lockdep: change scheduler annotation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080730.043448.217891740.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:34:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	peterz@...radead.org
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: change scheduler annotation

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:26:57 +0200

> While thinking about David's patch it _finally_ dawned on me that there
> is no reason we have a lock class per cpu..
> 
> Sorry for being dense :-/
> 
> The below changes the annotation from a lock class per cpu, to a single
> nested lock, as the scheduler never holds more that 2 rq locks at a time
> anyway.
> 
> If there was code requiring holding all rq locks this would not work and
> the original annotation would be the only option, but that not being the
> case, this is a much lighter one.
> 
> Compiles and boots on a 2-way x86_64.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>

I had been wondering this entire debugging session why the
per-rq lock classes were even there, thanks for getting
rid of them :)
--
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/