On 03/29/2013 09:08 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
That is where I had it initially. I may have gotten too clever
and worked on keeping more accesses read-only. If you want, I
can move it back here and re-submit the patch :)
I think I would prefer that - I feel having it upper serves little
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 19:50 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> So, there are a few things I don't like about spin_unlock_wait():
>>
>> 1- From a lock ordering point of view, it is strictly equivalent to
>> taking the lock and then releasing
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 03/28/2013 10:50 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> if (unlikely(sma->complex_count)) {
>>> spin_unlock(>lock);
>>> -
On 03/28/2013 10:50 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
Subject: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: change locking scheme to make lockdep happy
Unfortunately the locking scheme originally proposed has false positives
with lockdep. This can be fixed by
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 19:50 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> So, there are a few things I don't like about spin_unlock_wait():
>
> 1- From a lock ordering point of view, it is strictly equivalent to
> taking the lock and then releasing it - and yet, lockdep won't catch
> any deadlocks that
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 19:50 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
So, there are a few things I don't like about spin_unlock_wait():
1- From a lock ordering point of view, it is strictly equivalent to
taking the lock and then releasing it - and yet, lockdep won't catch
any deadlocks that involve
On 03/28/2013 10:50 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com wrote:
Subject: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: change locking scheme to make lockdep happy
Unfortunately the locking scheme originally proposed has false positives
with lockdep. This
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com wrote:
On 03/28/2013 10:50 PM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com wrote:
if (unlikely(sma-complex_count)) {
spin_unlock(sem-lock);
-
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 19:50 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
So, there are a few things I don't like about spin_unlock_wait():
1- From a lock ordering point of view, it is strictly equivalent to
taking the lock and
On 03/29/2013 09:08 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
That is where I had it initially. I may have gotten too clever
and worked on keeping more accesses read-only. If you want, I
can move it back here and re-submit the patch :)
I think I would prefer that - I feel having it upper serves little
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: change locking scheme to make lockdep
> happy
>
> Unfortunately the locking scheme originally proposed has false positives
> with lockdep. This can be fixed by changing the code to only ever take
> one
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:42:30 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I since realized there's an ordering problem with ->global_locked, we
> need to use spin_is_locked() or somesuch.
>
> Two competing sma_lock() operations will screw over the separate
> variable.
I created a worse version of the stress
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:42:30 +0100
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
I since realized there's an ordering problem with -global_locked, we
need to use spin_is_locked() or somesuch.
Two competing sma_lock() operations will screw over the separate
variable.
I created a worse version
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Rik van Riel r...@surriel.com wrote:
Subject: [PATCH -mm -next] ipc,sem: change locking scheme to make lockdep
happy
Unfortunately the locking scheme originally proposed has false positives
with lockdep. This can be fixed by changing the code to only ever
14 matches
Mail list logo
