Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)

Peter,

Thanks for this clear answer.

Remy

2007/12/8, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>:
>
> On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 21:33 +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote:
>
> > Which problems? I did not see any special things, it looked rather
> > straight forward. What have I overlooked?
>
> On suspend it locks the whole device tree, this means it has 'unbounded'
> nesting and holds an 'unbounded' number of locks. Neither things are
> easy to annotate (remember that mutex_lock_nested can handle up to 8
> nestings and current->held_locks has a max of 30).
>
> In fact, converting this will be the hardest part, it would require
> reworking the locking and introduction of a hard limit on the device
> tree depth - this might upset some people, but I suspect that 16 or 24
> should be deep enough for pretty much anything. Of course, if people
> prove me wrong, I'll have to reconsider. The up-side of the locking
> scheme I'm thinking of will be that locking the whole tree will only
> take 'depth' number of opterations vs the total number of tree elements.
>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
--
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/

---

• References:
  • lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: "Remy Bohmer" <[email protected]>
  • Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
  • Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
  • Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: "Remy Bohmer" <[email protected]>
  • Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
  • Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: "Remy Bohmer" <[email protected]>
  • Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
    • From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] sound/core/seq: move declarations of globally visible variables to proper headers
• Next by Date: [PATCH] asm-*/compat.h: fix typo in comment
• Previous by thread: Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
• Next by thread: Re: lockdep problem conversion semaphore->mutex (dev->sem)
• 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]