Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:18:06 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks |
| |
Dawson Engler <engler@csl.stanford.edu> wrote: > > BTW, are there known deadlocks (harmless or otherwise)? Debugging > the checker is a bit hard since false negatives are silent...
Known deadlocks tend to get fixed. But I am surprised that you did not encounter more of them.
btw, the filesystem transaction operations can be treated as sleeping locks. So for ext3, journal_start()/journal_stop() may, for lock-ranking purposes, be treated in the same way as taking and releasing a per-superblock semaphore. Other filesystems probably have similar restrictions.
Other such "hidden" sleeping locks are lock_sock() and wait_on_inode(). The latter is rather messy because there is no clear API function which sets I_LOCK.
And pte_chain_lock() is a custom spinlock.
- 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/
| |