lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 00/11] lock monitor: Separate features related to lock
On 03/20/10 14:56, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> On 03/19/10 06:16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >> And I have a question related to this dynamic patching approach for
> lockdep.
> >> If dynamic proving turning on/off is provided,
> >> lockdep will be confused by inconsistency of lock acquiring log.
> >>
> >> Will the sequence,
> >>
> >> lock_acquire(l) -> turning off -> lock_release(l) -> turning on ->
> >> lock_acquire(l)
> >>
> >> detected as double acquiring?
> >>
> >> Should turning on/off lockdep be done in the time
> >> when every processes have no lock?
> >
> >
> > There is almost always a process with a lock somewhere ;-)
>
> Yeah :)
>
> >
> > This is not a big deal, it's very similar to unfinished scenarios
> > due to the end of the tracing that can happen anytime and you miss
> > a lock_release or whatever. We can also begin the tracing anytime,
> > and you may receive orphan lock_release in the very beginning
> > because you missed the lock_acquire that happened before the tracing.
> >
> > Any locking scenario that doesn't fit into the state machine
> > or is incomplete must be considered as broken and then ignored.
> >
> >
>
> I see, thanks.
> I have to fix state machine of perf lock.
> Now it doesn't consider read, try and orphan events,
> it is very incompletely..
>

Ah, sorry, I've mentioned that these cases might be
a problem for validation part of lockdep, not for events.

If the lock and turning on/off sequence like this happened,
lock_acquire(l) -> turning off -> lock_release(l) -> turning on ->
lock_acquire(l)
this will confuse validator of lockdep.
At least, task_struct.lockdep_depth will be corrupted.
And I have a trivial question to Ingo.
In lockdep, held_locks of task_struct are accessed this arithmetical way
prev = curr->held_locks + i;
Of course this is valid way, but I feel it is more simple and natural way
prev = curr->held_locks[i];

Is there a reason for this style?
This is a pure question. I have no intention to rewrite them :)

Thanks,
Hitoshi


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-20 09:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site