![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> > blocking_notifier_call_chain is> > down_read(&nh->rwsem); > > ret = notifier_call_chain(&nh->head, val, v); > > up_read(&nh->rwsem); > > > > and so holds ->rwsem while calling the callback. > > So the locking sequence ends up as: > > > > down_read(&cpu_chain.rwsem); > > mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex); > > up_read(&cpu_chain.rwsem); > > > > down_read(&cpu_chain.rwsem); > > mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex); > > up_read(&workqueue_mutex); > > > > and lockdep doesn't seem to like this. It sees workqueue_mutex > > claimed while cpu_chain.rwsem is held. and then it sees > > cpu_chain.rwsem claimed while workqueue_mutex is held, which looks a > > bit like a class ABBA deadlock. > > Of course because it is a 'down_read' rather than a 'down', it isn't > > really a dead lock. ok can you explain to me why "down_read" doesn't make this a deadlock while "down" would make it a deadlock? I have trouble following your reasoning..... (remember that rwsems are strictly fair) - 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: 2006-10-11 13:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||