[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTikaU-2g-p676+a6aMdk+CPdSBQE1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:59:42 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] lockdep: Support recurise-read locks
2011/4/22 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>:
>> But if you call locktest1/locktest2 firstly, the chain will not be established
>> just because recursive read is not added to prev->after.
>
> This part is not OK. At least, I think lockdep should be able to establish the
> chain when locktest1 is called AGAIN after locktest2 is called (i.e.
> "cat /proc/locktest1 /proc/locktest2 /proc/locktest1" case).
I guess lockdep will warn on "cat /proc/locktest1 /proc/locktest2
/proc/locktest1"
> But lockdep can
> establish the chain for only "cat /proc/locktest2 /proc/locktest1" case.
> I think there is a bug that prevents the lockdep from establishing the chain
> when locktest1 is called AGAIN after locktest2 is called.
If we want to fully support recursive read validation, it's a bug; but that
also mean some head-burning work :)
> If we can't fix the
> bug, we should consider periodically (or upon printing stall warning messages)
> revalidating already established chains.
I don't think periodically revalidating make sense; because lockdep do
validate everything real-time.
Thanks,
Yong
--
Only stand for myself
--
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