[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140724183643.GM3935@laptop>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 20:36:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.16-rc6
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > So going by the nifty picture rostedt made:
> >
> > [ 61.454336] CPU0 CPU1
> > [ 61.454336] ---- ----
> > [ 61.454336] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
> > [ 61.454336] local_irq_disable();
> > [ 61.454336] lock(tasklist_lock);
> > [ 61.454336] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
> > [ 61.454336] <Interrupt>
> > [ 61.454336] lock(tasklist_lock);
>
> So this *should* be fine. It always has been in the past, and it was
> certainly the *intention* that it should continue to work with
> qrwlock, even in the presense of pending writers on other cpu's.
>
> The qrwlock rules are that a read-lock in an interrupt is still going
> to be unfair and succeed if there are other readers.
Ah, indeed. Should have checked :/
> So it sounds to me like the new lockdep rules in tip/master are too
> strict and are throwing a false positive.
Right. Waiman can you have a look?
--
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