[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160913214244.GB5020@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 23:42:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <max.byungchul.park@...il.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
walken@...gle.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, npiggin@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:38:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I _think_ you propose to keep track of all prior held locks and then use
> > > the union of the held list on the block-chain with the prior held list
> > > from the complete context.
> >
> > Almost right. Only thing we need to do to consider the union is to
> > connect two chains of two contexts by adding one dependency 'b -> a'.
>
> Sure, but how do you arrive at which connection to make. The document is
> entirely silent on this crucial point.
>
> The union between the held-locks of the blocked and prev-held-locks of
> the release should give a fair indication I think, but then, I've not
> thought too hard on this yet.
s/union/intersection/
those that are in both sets.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists