[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303148002.7181.47.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:33:22 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] lockdep: Seperate lock ids for read/write
acquires
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 18:49 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 12:46 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > void lockdep_off(void)
> > > @@ -1988,6 +1988,9 @@ static void check_chain_key(struct task_
> > > if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(id >= MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS))
> > > return;
> > >
> > > + if (is_read(hlock->rw_state))
> > > + id += MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS;
> >
> > Again, isn't this about recursive reads? Or am I just confused ;)
>
> So what we do here is split off the write chain, the above could have
> been writeen if (!is_write()) to clarify that.
Or just add a comment ;)
-- Steve
>
> Everything except recursive read validation will traverse both chains,
> the recursive read validation will only traverse the write chains and
> ignore the combined read/recursive-read chain.
--
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