On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 22:17 +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> I think we talk about the situation
No, we talk about existing lock chains L(0) --> L(n).
> B locks 1 C locks 2 D locks 3
> B locks 2, boosts C and block
> A locks 2
> A is boost B
> A drop it's spinlocks and is preempted
> C unlocks 2 and auto unboosts
> B is running
> B locks 3, boosts C and blocks
> A gets a CPU again
> A boosts B
> A boosts D
>
> Is there anything wrong with that?
> And in the case where A==D there indeed is a deadlock which will be
> detected.
If you get to L(x) the underlying dependencies might have changed
already as well as the dependencies x ... n. We might get false
positives in the deadlock detection that way, as a deadlock is an
"atomic" state.
tglx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
