[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1551203292.31902.174.camel@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:48:12 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com, tj@...nel.org,
longman@...hat.com, johannes.berg@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 21/23] block: Avoid that flushing triggers a lockdep
complaint
On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 18:24 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:00:56PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > @@ -472,7 +473,8 @@ struct blk_flush_queue *blk_alloc_flush_queue(struct request_queue *q,
> > if (!fq)
> > goto fail;
> >
> > - spin_lock_init(&fq->mq_flush_lock);
> > + lockdep_register_key(&fq->key);
> > + spin_lock_init_key(&fq->mq_flush_lock, &fq->key);
>
> What's wrong with:
>
> spin_lock_init(&fq->wq_flush_lock);
> lockdep_register_key(&fq->key);
> lockdep_set_class(&fq->wq_flush_lock, &fq->key);
>
> ?
Hi Peter,
That's an approach that I had not yet considered. I'm fine with the
lockdep_set_class() version.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists