[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1362449845-7492-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:17:23 -0800
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] tighten lglock lockdep annotations
Oleg Nesterov recently noticed that the lockdep annotations in lglock.c
are not sufficient to detect some obvious deadlocks, such as
lg_local_lock(LOCK) + lg_local_lock(LOCK) or
spin_lock(X) + lg_local_lock(Y) vs lg_local_lock(Y) + spin_lock(X).
Both issues can be fixed by indicating to lockdep that lglock's local
locks are not recursive.
Patch 1 introduces helper macros for lockdep annotations.
Patch 2 makes sure to use the appropriate helper macros to indicate that
the lglock local lock is a shared, non-recursive lock.
Michel Lespinasse (2):
lockdep: introduce lock_acquire_exclusive/shared helper macros
lglock: update lockdep annotations to report recursive local locks
include/linux/lockdep.h | 92 +++++++++++++------------------------------------
kernel/lglock.c | 12 +++----
2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
--
1.8.1.3
--
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