[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150905082723.5bc11a25@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:27:23 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 0/3] RT: Fix trylock deadlock without msleep()
hack
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:18:36 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> I even had that solution in my slides at LinuxCon/LinuxPlumbers ;-)
Here's my slides:
http://rostedt.homelinux.com/private/linux-con-rt-into-mainline-2015.pdf
Slide 19 is where I start talking about it.
Slide 21 shows Ingo's solution.
Slide 22 shows the complex issue of dcache.c.
Would your solution work with that code?
-- Steve
>
>
> But then I talk about dcache.c. Take a look at that file, and the
> complexity of that. Is it safe to take the inode and dcache parent
> locks after you unlock the other locks?
--
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