[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130910075635.GH26785@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:56:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: Gerlando Falauto <gerlando.falauto@...mile.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
"Brunck, Holger" <Holger.Brunck@...mile.com>,
"Longchamp, Valentin" <Valentin.Longchamp@...mile.com>,
"Bigler, Stefan" <Stefan.Bigler@...mile.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel deadlock
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 01:29:47PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Ingo: This makes me think we really should have some lockdep smarts
> added to seqlock/seqcount structures. Is there something already
> discovered thats preventing this, or has this just not yet been tried?
The only reason this hasn't been done in the past is because of the VDSO
I believe. We use a seqcount_t from userspace.
We either have to open-code the VDSO version or create a variant for
that specific single use case.
--
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