[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080804.145713.12569716.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: andrea@...ranet.com
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, davej@...hat.com, rdreier@...co.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jeremy@...p.org, hugh@...itas.com,
mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workaround minor lockdep bug triggered by
mm_take_all_locks
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:09:54 +0200
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:37:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > You're so wrong it not even funny. It reports about deadlocks before
> > they happen. All it needs is to observe a lock order violation and it
>
> Now tell me how it helps to report them... It tells me the system has
> crashed and where, it's not like I couldn't figure it out by myself
> but just noticing nothing works and all cpus are spinning in some
> spinlock slow path and pressing sysrq+t/p.
It tells you about deadlock scenerios that you haven't even encoutered
yet. It shows bugs for parallel code path sequences that have not
even occurred yet.
But I think you're beyond the point of being able to see why lockdep
is valuable. So why don't we just move on.
--
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