[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170810092523.ktie2iqhefw5saop@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 11:25:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, npiggin@...il.com,
kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 11/14] lockdep: Apply crossrelease to PG_locked locks
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:35:02AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 04:12:58PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > Although lock_page() and its family can cause deadlock, the lock
> > correctness validator could not be applied to them until now, becasue
> > things like unlock_page() might be called in a different context from
> > the acquisition context, which violates lockdep's assumption.
> >
> > Thanks to CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE, we can now apply the lockdep
> > detector to page locks. Applied it.
>
> Is there any reason excluding applying it into PG_locked?
Wanted to start small..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists