Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep

On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 14:21 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> well, in this case the lock/unlock should nest perfectly (i.e. it should 
> always be balanced perfectly), so indeed calling with nested==1 leads to 
> stricter checking.
> 
> non-nested unlocks occur when people do stuff like:
> 
> 	spin_lock(&lock1);
> 	spin_lock(&lock2);
> 	spin_unlock(&lock1);
> 	spin_unlock(&lock2);
> 
> the first unlock is not 'nested perfectly'. Now for the workqueue 
> dep_map this shouldnt be a legal combination, right?

I don't think so, will change to use nested==1.

johannes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

---

• References:
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep
    • From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep
    • From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep
    • From: Johannes Berg <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm 5/9] netconsole: Introduce dev_status member
• Next by Date: Re: idr_get_new_above() limitation?
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] debug workqueue deadlocks with lockdep
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]