[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45D60022.9060701@candelatech.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:04:02 -0800
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>,
Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Kyle Lucke <klucke@...ibm.com>,
Raghavendra Koushik <raghavendra.koushik@...erion.com>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [BUG] RTNL and flush_scheduled_work deadlocks
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:40:32 -0800
> Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> wrote:
>> Maybe there should be something like an ASSERT_NOT_RTNL() in the
>> flush_scheduled_work()
>> method? If it's performance criticial, #ifdef it out if we're not
>> debugging locks?
>>
>
> You can't safely add a check like that. What if another cpu had acquired
> RTNL and was unrelated.
I guess there isn't a way to see if *this* thread is the owner of the RTNL
currently? I think lockdep knows the owner...maybe could query it somehow,
or just save the owner in the mutex object when debugging is enabled...
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists