[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [CHECKER] a couple potential deadlocks in 2.4.5-ac8
    In message <> you write:
    > said:
    > > Good point. Spinlocks (with the exception of read-read locks, of
    > > course) and semaphores will deadlock on recursive use, while the BKL
    > > has this "process usage counter" recursion protection.
    > Obtaining a read lock twice can deadlock too, can't it?
    > A B
    > read_lock()
    > write_lock()
    > ...sleeps...
    > read_lock()
    > ...sleeps...
    > Or do we not make new readers sleep if there's a writer waiting?

    We can never[1] make new readers sleep if there's a writer waiting, as
    Linus guaranteed that an IRQ handler which only ever grabs a read lock
    means the rest of the code doesn't need to block interrupts on its
    read locks (see Documentation/spinlock.txt IIRC).

    Also, netfilter will break (brlocks inherit this property from
    their spinlocks constituents).

    [1] Well, we could, but we'd have to do a special "same CPU?" check,
    which would suck badly.
    Premature optmztion is rt of all evl. --DK
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:3.234 / U:0.140 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site