[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1303164420.32491.908.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:07:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Gautham R Shenoy <gautshen@....ac.in>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] lockdep: Seperate lock ids for read/write
acquires
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 11:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In order to support recursive read locks we need to support the
> previously mentioned lock state conflict matrix:
>
> Conflicting_states(WRITE): RECURSIVE_READ | READ | WRITE
> Conflicting_states(READ): READ | WRITE
> Conflicting_states(RECURSIVE_READ): WRITE
>
> Since this introduces asymmetry between recursive read and write, we
> need to split the lock dependency chains such that we can traverse
> WRITE chains without observing RECURSIVE_READ|READ chains.
So while we split off the WRITE chain from the RECURSIVE_READ|READ
chains, shouldn't we split it in three, because the READ conflict state
only has READ|WRITE, not RECURSIVE_READ.
Therefore a RECURSIVE_READ dependency in the READ chain could throw the
regular READ cycle detector, no?
A(r) -> B(r) -> C(rr)
C(w) -> B(r)
would close the cycle and report a problem, but doesn't match the
conflict states.
--
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