lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: interrupt checks for spinlocks
    On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
    [...]
    >> The only action taken is printk() and dump_stack(). No arch code has
    >> been futzed with to provide irq tainting yet. Looks like a good way
    >> to shake out lurking bugs to me (somewhat like may_sleep() etc.).

    On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 04:15:46PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
    > Wouldn't it be interesting to keep a ( per task ) list of acquired
    > spinlocks to be able to diagnose cross locks in case of stall ?
    > ( obviously under CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK )

    That would appear to require cycle detection, but it sounds like a
    potential breakthrough usage of graph algorithms in the kernel.
    (I've always been told graph algorithms would come back to haunt me.)
    Or maybe not, deadlock detection has been done before.

    A separate patch/feature/whatever for deadlock detection could do that
    nicely, though. What I've presented here is meant only to flag far more
    trivial errors with interrupt enablement/disablement than the full
    deadlock detection problem.


    Bill
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.029 / U:90.940 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site