[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1269359134.5109.93.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:45:34 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, h.mitake@...il.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to
lock
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 16:39 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> might_lock_read() uses might_fault(), rcu, workqueues and probably
> yet some others use sequences of lock_acquire/lock_release to prove
> locking while there is actually no real lock operation involved, but
> this is to detect dependency/balance mistakes.
might_fault() simply always takes the mmap_sem because actually hitting
the fault path (which otherwise would establish that relation) is very
rare for some cases, so by forcing that dependency we get better
coverage.
rcu_read_lock() is an actual lock :-)
workqueues use 'fake' locks to connect lock chains to flush, so that we
can detect things like trying to flush a workqueue while holding a lock
that is required to complete the 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