[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFymh9PP12Tt40HZB-JMv6Tan2aNJvnCScXpx3XrmddTAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:51:53 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
>
> Hmm, I'm getting the following at bootup:
>
> May be due to missing lock nesting notation
Yes it is. And that reminds me of a problem I think we had with this
code: we had a possible case of the preemption counter nesting too
deeply. I forget the details, but it was something people worried
about.
That mm_take_all_locks() thing is really special, and I suspect that
if we go down this way we should just do a single preempt-disable and
then use the arch_write_lock() to avoid both the lockdep splat _and_
the preemption counter overflow.
Linus
--
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