[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100326115457.GB19308@shareable.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:54:57 +0000
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] mm: lockdep page lock
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 03:18 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 13:21 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agreed (btw. Peter is there any way to turn lock debugging back on?
> > > > it's annoying when cpufreq hotplug code or something early breaks and
> > > > you have to reboot in order to do any testing).
> > >
> > > Not really, the only way to do that is to get the full system back into
> > > a known (zero) lock state and then fully reset the lockdep state.
> >
> > How about: Set a variable nr_pending = number of CPUs, run a task on
> > each CPU which disables interrupts, atomically decrements nr_pending
> > and then spins waiting for it to become negative (raw, not counted in
> > lockdep), and whichever one takes it to zero, that task knows there
> > are no locks held, and can reset the lockdep state. Then sets it to
> > -1 to wake everyone.
>
> Nope, won't work, you can easily preempt a lock holder.
Doh, yes of course.
I promise to get some sleep before further appearances :-)
-- Jamie
--
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