* Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure I can understand your plan, but I doubt there should be
> > such problems with taking rwsem for sleeping, so maybe it would be
> > better to figure out what really scares lockdep, to fix the right
> > place?
>
> The real problem is that
Alan Stern wrote, On 12/04/2007 08:28 PM:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
...
> But you have to consider hypothetical kernel bugs. That's exactly what
> lockdep is for -- to warn you about possible deadlocks that could be
> caused by bugs.
>
> As a simple example, if thread #1 d
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote, On 12/04/2007 04:17 PM:
> ...
>
> > Furthermore, in this case deadlock isn't really impossible -- it could
> > occur if there were a bug somewhere else in the kernel. So lockdep was
> > correct to warn that deadlock might occur.
>
Alan Stern wrote, On 12/04/2007 04:17 PM:
...
> Furthermore, in this case deadlock isn't really impossible -- it could
> occur if there were a bug somewhere else in the kernel. So lockdep was
> correct to warn that deadlock might occur.
Alan, if the scenario was like you described at the begi
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote, On 12/03/2007 04:08 PM:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, IMHO, there is no reason for any lockdep violation:
> >>
> >> thread #1: has down_read(A); waits for #2 to down_write(B)
> >> thread #2: has
Alan Stern wrote, On 12/03/2007 04:08 PM:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
>
>>> System sleep start:
>>> down_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
>>> call the notifier routine
>>> down_write(&system_sleep_in_progress_rwsem);
>>> up_read(
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > System sleep start:
> > down_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
> > call the notifier routine
> > down_write(&system_sleep_in_progress_rwsem);
> > up_read(notifier-chain rwsem);
> >
> > System sleep en
On 02-12-2007 20:45, Alan Stern wrote:
> Ingo:
>
> I ran into a lockdep reporting issue just now with some new code under
> development. I think it's a false positive; the question is how best
> to deal with it.
>
> Here's the situation. The new code runs during a system sleep (i.e.,
> suspe
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > This creates a lockdep violation; each rwsem in turn is locked while
> > the other is being held. However the only way this could lead to
> > deadlock would be if there was already a bug in the system Power
> > Management code (overlapping notifi
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 14:45:32 -0500 (EST)
Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo:
>
> I ran into a lockdep reporting issue just now with some new code
> under development. I think it's a false positive; the question is
> how best to deal with it.
>
> Here's the situation. The new code runs
Ingo:
I ran into a lockdep reporting issue just now with some new code under
development. I think it's a false positive; the question is how best
to deal with it.
Here's the situation. The new code runs during a system sleep (i.e.,
suspend or hibernation). Certain activities have to be defe
11 matches
Mail list logo
