[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710192250140.2054@nanos>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 22:53:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
cc: "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"byungchul.park@....com" <byungchul.park@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"kernel-team@....com" <kernel-team@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] lockdep: Remove BROKEN flag of
LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 13:33 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > For example, the page lock is not annotatable with lockdep -- we return
> > to userspace with it held, for heaven's sake! So it is quite easy for
> > someone not familiar with the MM locking hierarchy to inadvertently
> > introduce an ABBA deadlock against the page lock. (ie me. I did that.)
> > Right now, that has to be caught by a human reviewer; if cross-release
> > checking can catch that, then it's worth having.
>
> Hello Matthew,
>
> Although I agree that enabling lock inversion checking for page locks is
> useful, I think my questions still apply to other locking objects than page
> locks.
Why are other objects any different?
lock(L) -> wait_for_completion(A)
lock(L) -> complete(A)
is a simple ABBA and they exist and have not been caught for a long time
until they choked a production machine.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists