[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1a5d4610-b84e-ba29-b5bb-b80e19fc17b7@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:24:34 -0500
From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: waitqueue lockdep annotation
On 12/01/2017 06:03 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:34:50PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
>> hmmm...I'm not sure how this suggestion would change the locking rules
>> from what we currently have. Right now, we use ep->lock, if we remove
>> that and use ep->wq->lock instead, there is just a 1-to-1 mapping there
>> that has not changed, since ep->wq->lock currently is completely not
>> being used.
>
> True. The patch below survives the amazing complex booting and starting
> systemd with lockdep enabled test. Do we have something resembling a
> epoll test suite?
>
I don't think we have any in the kernel tree proper (other than some
selftests using epoll) but there are tests in ltp and some performance
tests such as:
http://linux-scalability.org/epoll/epoll-test.c
http://www.xmailserver.org/linux-patches/pipetest.c
Thanks,
-Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists