[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230816101902.Pz8wdats@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 12:19:02 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
bsegall@...gle.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, swood@...hat.com,
bristot@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, mingo@...hat.com,
jstultz@...gle.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, vschneid@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, longman@...hat.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] locking/rtmutex: Avoid PI state recursion through
sched_submit_work()
On 2023-08-16 11:42:57 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Not the same -- this is namespace_lock(), right? That's a regular rwsem
> afaict and that *should* be good. Clearly I messed something up.
Most likely. I do see it also fom inode_lock() which does down_write().
I see it only to originate from rwbase_write_lock().
> Thanks!
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists