[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110914044013.GD2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:40:13 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Lockdep and rw_semaphores
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:55:25PM -0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> > thread 1:
> > down_read(&A); /* got it */
> > thread 2:
> > down_read(&B); /* got it */
> > thread 3:
> > down_write(&A); /* blocked until thread 1 releases A */
That's the only thread here doing down_write() on A
> > thread 4:
> > down_write(&B); /* blocked until thread 2 releases B */
... and that's the only thread here doing down_write() on B. And neither
of those is holding any other locks. No nesting.
> 1. Reverse read locking isn't always a deadlock. For instance, if only 1 write
> thread participating and doesn't do nested write locking, which is a quite valid
> scenario, because by design of rw locks they are used with many readers and
> limited amount of rare writers.
Um? If you mean that here we have two threads doing down_write(), remember
that you've got two locks.
> So, it should be better if this warning is issued, if there is >1 thread write
> locking detected on any participated rw lock, and illustrated with a correct
> explanation.
Which would be which threads, in the situation described above? Again,
we have no nesting for writes and we have one thread attempting down_write()
for any given lock. Two locks, two writers in total...
--
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