On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> I understand what Ingo is saying about detecting deadlocks across the
> pool of locks of the same class not waiting till they really clash, it
> is really useful. I also want to make my code as independent of lockdep
> as possible. Having a speciall marking on the locks themselves (done
> upon creation) instead of altering call sites is the cleanest way IMHO.
> Can we have a flag in the lock structure that would tell lockdep that it
> is OK for the given lock to be taken several times (i.e. the locks are
> really on the different objects)? This would still allow to detect
> incorrect locking across different classes.
Yes, but unfortunately marking the lock as 'can-be-taken-multiple-times'
is weaker than using the nested locking provided by lockdep.
i.e. if you mark a lock this way, it opens door for having deadlock, which
won't be detected by lockdep. This will happen if the code, by mistake,
really takes the _very same_ lock twice. lockdep will not be able to
detect this, when the lock is marked in a way you propose, but is able to
detect this when using the nested semantics.
--
JiKos.
-
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]
