[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140711082500.GB20603@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:25:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
davej@...hat.com, koct9i@...il.com, lczerner@...hat.com,
stable@...r.kernel.org, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: + shmem-fix-faulting-into-a-hole-while-its-punched-take-2.patch
added to -mm tree
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:02:29PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> What if we move lockdep's acquisition point to after it actually got the
> lock?
NAK, you want to do deadlock detection _before_ you're stuck in a
deadlock.
> We'd miss deadlocks, but we don't care about them right now. Anyways, doesn't
> lockdep have anything built in to allow us to separate between locks which
> we attempt to acquire and locks that are actually acquired?
>
> (cc PeterZ)
>
> We can treat locks that are in the process of being acquired the same as
> acquired locks to avoid races, but when we print something out it would
> be nice to have annotation of the read state of the lock.
I'm missing the problem here I think.
--
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