Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 5 Jun 2006 14:50:29 +0200 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-rc5-mm3: bad unlock ordering (reiser4?) |
| |
* Alexander Zarochentsev <zam@namesys.com> wrote:
> I think the txnh lock and the tmgr lock are _non_nested. [...]
ok - that's what the two changes i did do.
> [...] And, there is a place where two atom locks are taken in > deadlock-free order w/o always keeping correct order of unlocking. > The latest thing can be made lock-validator-friendly.
could you send a patch for that? When there is single-depth nesting of two atom-locks then the annotation is easy, instead of:
spin_lock(&atom->alock);
you should do:
spin_lock_nested(&atom->alock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING)
for the unordered unlocks, just change the one that is non-nested to spin_unlock_non_nested(). (the second lock can stay spin_unlock() - that will be in order again)
Ingo - 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/
|  |