[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53E264D4.5090800@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 13:24:36 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v6] locking/selftest: Support queued rwlock
On 08/05/2014 09:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:53:19PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The queued rwlock does not support the use of recursive read-lock in
>> the process context. With changes in the lockdep code to check and
>> disallow recursive read-lock, it is also necessary for the locking
>> selftest to be updated to change the process context recursive read
>> locking results from SUCCESS to FAILURE for rwlock.
>>
> Maybe I wasn't clear; but I meant you should extend the lock tests to
> cover the full qrwlock semantics.
>
> That means we also need tests like:
>
> RL(X1);
> IRQ_ENTER();
> RL(X2);
> IRQ_EXIT();
>
> To fully validate that in_interrupt exception to fairness etc..
Sorry for misinterpretation. I have just sent out an updated patch with
additional self tests to verify that recursive read-lock is allowed
under interrupt context.
-Longman
--
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