[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1364303965.5053.29.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:19:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, davidlohr.bueso@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
hhuang@...hat.com, jason.low2@...com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
chegu_vinod@...com, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
benisty.e@...il.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 14:42 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> depth nesting here...
> Adding Peter & Ingo for advice about how to proceed
> > +++ b/ipc/sem.c
> > @@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ static inline int sem_lock(struct sem_array
> *sma, struct sembuf *sops,
> > spin_lock(&sma->sem_perm.lock);
> > for (i = 0; i < sma->sem_nsems; i++) {
> > struct sem *sem = sma->sem_base + i;
> > - spin_lock(&sem->lock);
> > + spin_lock_nested(&sem->lock,
> SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> > }
> > locknum = -1;
> > }
Right, so as walken said, this isn't going to work right.
I need a little more information as I've not really paid much attention
to this stuff. Firstly, is there a limit to sem_nsems or is this a
random user specified number? Secondly do we care about lock order at
all, or is array order the only order that counts?
--
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