[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1281988895.1926.1945.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:01:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [LOCKDEP BUG][2.6.36-rc1] xt_info_wrlock?
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 21:35 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le lundi 16 août 2010 à 21:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
>
> > Adding lockdep_off() is just plain wrong, if you cannot describe the
> > locking there's a fair chance its wrong anyway.
> >
>
> I see.
>
> I described the fine locking after Steven comment, adding a long
> Changelog.
>
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/61827/
>
> If someone thinks this locking is buggy, please speak now ;)
Urgh,.. I think it might be correct, but wtf! Wasn't this originally RCU
code, why not go back to using RCU now that we have
synchronize_rcu_expedited()?
As to the original issue, why not keep that bh stuff disabled for
CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING instead, that will at least let you keep lock
coverage, adding lockdep_off() will hide any cycles that would involve
this lock (even though its currently a leaf lock, you never know what
creative things the future brings).
This fancy open coded lock looks like utter fail for -rt though.. please
use RCU if at all possible.
--
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