On 12/07, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > 4. No deadlock possibilities > > Per-cpu locking is not the way to go if we want to have relaxed rules > for lock-ordering. Because, we can end up in circular-locking dependencies > as explained in https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/6/290
OK, but this assumes that, contrary to what Steven said, read-write-read deadlock is not possible when it comes to rwlock_t. So far I think this is true and we can't deadlock. Steven? However. If this is true, then compared to preempt_disable/stop_machine livelock is possible. Probably this is fine, we have the same problem with get_online_cpus(). But if we can accept this fact I feel we can simmplify this somehow... Can't prove, only feel ;) Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
