[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130220152446.a65ff84f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:24:46 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:17:16 -0800
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org> wrote:
> We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.
>
> ...
>
> @@ -43,6 +44,9 @@ extern void thaw_kernel_threads(void);
>
> + if (!(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE))
> + debug_check_no_locks_held(current,
> +
> "lock held while trying to freeze");
> ...
>
> + debug_check_no_locks_held(tsk, "lock held at task exit time");
There doesn't seem much point in adding the `msg' to
debug_check_no_locks_held() - the dump_stack() in
print_held_locks_bug() will tell us the same thing. Maybe just change
the print_held_locks_bug() messages so they stop assuming they were
called from do_exit()?
Also, I wonder if the `tsk' arg is needed. In both callers
tsk==current. Is it likely that we'll ever call
debug_check_no_locks_held() for any task other than `current'?
--
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