[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy9mVCJUniAMVvJjqaa=ke2mx6HfkPhCGP54ncdh70peQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 09:26:35 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: psodagud@...eaurora.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, sherryy@...roid.com,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock)
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:35 AM Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
> In other words, qrwlock requires consistent locking order wrt spinlocks.
I *thought* lockdep already tracked and detected this. Or is that only with
with the sleeping versions?
But yes, that's equivalent to the irq-unfairness thing we have a special
case for.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists