[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1249663785.32113.754.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:49:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"greg@...ah.com" <greg@...ah.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [RT] Lockdep warning on boot with 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:45 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The other proposal was creating a fixed list of classes and register
> > each device at a class corresponding to its depth in the tree. I can't
> > remember what was wrong with that, but I seem to have been persuaded
> > that that was hard too.
>
> It probably would work for the most part. However a possible scenario
> involves first locking a parent and then locking all its children. (I
> don't know if this ever happens anywhere, but it might.) This can't
> cause a deadlock but it would run into trouble with depth-based
> classes.
If you know which parent is locked, we can solve that with
mutex_lock_nest_lock() [ doesn't currently exist, but is analogous to
spin_lock_nest_lock() ] and together with
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/23/222 that would allow you to lock up to
2048 children.
Would something like that work?
--
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