Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:07:18 -0800 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Lock ordering, inquiring minds want to know. |
| |
In looking over sched.c I find:
spin_lock_irq(&runqueue_lock); read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
This seems to me to be the wrong order of things. The read lock unavailable (some one holds a write lock) for relatively long periods of time, for example, wait holds it in a while loop. On the other hand the runqueue_lock, being a "irq" lock will always be held for short periods of time. It would seem better to wait for the runqueue lock while holding the read_lock with the interrupts on than to wait for the read_lock with interrupts off. As near as I can tell this is the only place in the system that both of these locks are held (of course, all cases of two locks being held at the same time, both locker must use the same order). So...
What am I missing here?
George - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |