![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> in ep_poll() (fs/eventpoll.c) the code does
>
> write_lock_irqsave(&ep->lock, flags);
>
> res = 0;
> if (list_empty(&ep->rdllist)) {
> /*
> * We don't have any available event to return to the caller.
> * We need to sleep here, and we will be wake up by
> * ep_poll_callback() when events will become available.
> */
> init_waitqueue_entry(&wait, current);
> add_wait_queue(&ep->wq, &wait);
>
> eg we first take ep->lock and then call add_wait_queue which takes
> spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> for obvious reasons.
> this would mean that ep->lock would be the outer lock, and q->lock the
>
>
> HOWEVER, __wake_up does this:
> void fastcall __wake_up(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
> int nr_exclusive, void *key)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> __wake_up_common(q, mode, nr_exclusive, 0, key);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> }
>
> where __wake_up_common calls into ep_poll_callback, which in term does
> write_lock_irqsave(&ep->lock, flags);
> as one of the first things.
>
> ... which implies that q->lock is the outer lock, and ep->lock is the
> inner lock....
>
> can you explain which order is right, and if/why this is not an AB-BA
> deadlock??
Just woke up and still dangerously low on caffeine, but that would happen
if and only if the wake up target of the epoll fd #N is the epoll fd #N,
and this is explicitly denied in epoll_ctl(ADD). I'll take a deeper look
once I get in the office with my venti latte ;)
- Davide
-
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: 2006-06-01 15:55 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||