[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140426071702.2a866fc5@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 07:17:02 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rtmutex: Do not prio boost when timeout is used
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:04:37 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 04:28:48PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I've been discussing an issue on IRC with deadlock checking and found
> > something wrong with it. Mainly, if any of the locks have a timeout,
> > then even if the chain loops, there is no real deadlock. If one of the
> > locks in the chain times out, then things will move forward again.
>
>
> POSIX (opengroup):
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_mutex_timedlock.html
>
> Explicitly states that pthread_mutex_timedlock() should participate in
> the PI chain, it also states that its perfectly valid for this function
> to return -EDEADLK.
>
> Therefore, there's nothing wrong. If this behaviour breaks userspace,
> its already broken for not actually expecting the right thing.
Fair enough. Thanks for the link.
-- Steve
--
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