linux-kernel - Re: [patch V2 08/15] Documentation: Add lock ordering and nesting documentation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200321172305.GW3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:23:05 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [patch V2 08/15] Documentation: Add lock ordering and nesting
 documentation

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:26:06AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:36:03PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> I agree that what I tried to express is hard to parse, but it's at least
> >> halfways correct :)
> >
> > Apologies!  That is what I get for not looking it up in the source.  :-/
> >
> > OK, so I am stupid enough not only to get it wrong, but also to try again:
> >
> >    ... Other types of wakeups would normally unconditionally set the
> >    task state to RUNNING, but that does not work here because the task
> >    must remain blocked until the lock becomes available.  Therefore,
> >    when a non-lock wakeup attempts to awaken a task blocked waiting
> >    for a spinlock, it instead sets the saved state to RUNNING.  Then,
> >    when the lock acquisition completes, the lock wakeup sets the task
> >    state to the saved state, in this case setting it to RUNNING.
> >
> > Is that better?
> 
> Definitely!
> 
> Thanks for all the editorial work!

NP, and glad you like it!

But I felt even more stupid sometime in the middle of the night.  Why on
earth didn't I work in your nice examples?  :-/

I will pull them in later.  Time to go hike!!!

							Thanx, Paul