[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080819092754.GE28713@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 11:27:54 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 9] x86/smp function calls: convert x86 tlb flushes
to use function calls [POST 2]
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> I think this might be a spurious "holding multiple locks in the same
> class" bug. All the queue locks are presumably in the same class, and
> ipi_call_lock_irq() wants to hold them all to lock out any IPIs.
> Spurious because this is the only place which holds more than one
> queue lock, and it always locks 0->N.
>
> I guess the fix is to use an outer lock and use spin_lock_nested()
> (now that it exists). Something along these lines?
this is not a good idea:
> +/* Hold queues_lock when taking more than one queue[].lock at once */
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(queues_lock);
because it adds an artificial extra spinlock for no good reason and
weakens the lock dependency checking as well.
Just add a lock class descriptor to each call_function_queue lock, so
that lockdep can see that it's truly all in the correct order.
I.e. dont turn lockdep off artificially.
Ingo
--
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