[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53765597.6000400@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 14:14:47 -0400
From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] futex/rtmutex: Fix issues exposed by trinity
On 05/15/2014 04:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 05:17:35PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> No, its perfectly fine to have a lock sequence abort with -EDEADLK.
>>> Userspace should release its locks and re-attempt.
>>
>> I agree. If I can prove that it's actually a deadlock, and
>> that unlock/relock will work to fix it, then we can arrange for glibc
>> to return EDEADLK.
>
> The only reason the kernel would return EDEADLK is because its walked
> the lock graph and determined its well, a deadlock.
Perfect. No further comments from me then.
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
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