[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANN689Eyro_0L-oAHrZ8GC-Pq4PCFXGSZTxrHpVzjfFXz305-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:24:42 -0800
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...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: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lglock: update lockdep annotations to report
recursive local locks
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 03/04, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>>
>> Both issues are easily fixed by indicating to lockdep that lglock's local
>> locks are not recursive. We shouldn't use the rwlock acquire/release
>> functions here, as lglock doesn't share the same semantics. Instead
>> we can base our lockdep annotations on the lock_acquire_shared
>> (for local lglock) and lock_acquire_exclusive (for global lglock)
>> helpers.
>
> IOW, with this patch lglock looks like rw_semaphore for lockdep...
Yes.
I could have actually made lglock use the rwsem helpers, but I think
that would be quite confusing...
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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