lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks
Dawson Engler <engler@csl.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Any feedback on the results would be great. My understanding of linux's
> sprawling locking rules is less than impressive.

We would be impressed if it wasn't :)

> Also, if there are
> known deadlocks, let me know and I can make sure we're finding them.

There are some real ones there. The ones surrounding lock_kernel() and
semaphores are false positives.

lock_kernel() is special, in that the lock is dropped when the caller
performs a voluntary context switch. So there are no ordering requirements
between lock_kernel and the sleeping locks down(), down_read(), down_write().

lock_kernel() inside a spinlock is not necessarily a bug, but almost always
is. It should be warned about.

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.062 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site