[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1225293796.9315.4.camel@lappy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:23:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lockdep: implement full check without irq checking
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 21:44 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> This patch implements a new check type "3" which means "full validation
> but without irq tracing" in order to allow some certain fake locks that
> are only added for deadlock detection to not cause inconsistent state
> warnings which would be inappropriate for them.
This thing worries me, can you help my exhausted brain a long a little..
So I take it the idea is to couple the lock chains of the site calling
del_timer_sync and the actual timer.
We do this by holding a fake lock while executing the timer, so that its
lock chain starts with that lock.
We then acquire the fake lock on del_timer_sync so as to establish a
relation.
Now you get warnings about using a lock in hardirq context that was
previously used !irq-safe, right?
So why not simply write something like:
del_timer_sync():
local_irq_save(flags);
lock_aquire(my fake timer lock);
lock_release(...);
local_irq_restore(flags);
and make that conditional CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and or wrap it up
somewhere..
--
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