lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks
Date
> 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.

;-)

I sent out a *very* small subset of the checker's output. There are
hundreds of messages. I wanted to check on validity before flooding
people.


> 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.

Good deal. Thanks for the pointers, I was missing all of these besides
lock_sock.

One nice thing is that the race detector has been OK at pointing out
when a locking function is missing from our list.

Dawson
-
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:0.076 / U:1.800 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site