lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: RT Mutex patch and tester [PREEMPT_RT]
From
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 06:25:36PM +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> So how many locks do we have to worry about? Two.
> One for locking the lock. One for locking various PI related data on the
> task structure, as the pi_waiters list, blocked_on, pending_owner - and
> also prio.
> Therefore only lock->wait_lock and sometask->pi_lock will be locked at the
> same time. And in that order. There is therefore no spinlock deadlocks.
> And the code is simpler.

Ok, got a question. How do deal with the false reporting and handling of
a lock circularity window involving the handoff of task A's BKL to another
task B ? Task A is blocked trying to get a mutex owned by task B, task A
is block B since it owns BKL which task B is contending on. It's not a
deadlock since it's a hand off situation.

I didn't see any handling of this case in the code and I was wondering
if the traversal logic you wrote avoids this case as an inherent property
and I missed that stuff ?

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: 2006-01-15 05:30    [W:3.077 / U:0.220 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site