[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080804145318.GA17867@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:53:18 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jeremy@...p.org,
hugh@...itas.com, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] lockdep: spin_lock_nest_lock()
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:32:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 07:26 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > No more than 48 locks (mutexes, rwlocks, spinlock, RCU, everything
> > > covered by lockdep) held by any one code-path; including nested
> > > interrupt contexts.
> >
> > Does that mean that something like the new mm_take_all_locks() operation
> > is going to explode if someone tries to use it with lockdep on?
>
> Gah - yes, clearly nobody tried this.. :-/
>
> Just looking at the code it will not only run into this limit, but it
> would warn about recursion on the second file/anon vma due to utter lack
> of annotation.
>
> Why are people still developing without lockdep?
More puzzling, is why hasn't this triggered in the Fedora rawhide kernels,
which do have lockdep enabled.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--
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