[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks
> Andrew Morton writes:
> > Dawson Engler <> 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.
> >
> So are page-fault and memory allocation events, because thread
> blocks on them, and deadlocks involving servicing page fault or memory
> laundering have definitely been seen.

Do you mean calls to copy_*_user and kmalloc(GFP_WAIT) or did you have
something else in mind as well?

> We have (incomplete) description of kernel lock ordering, which is
> centered around reiser4 locks, but also includes some core kernel stuff.
> It is available at
> --- source for Bell-Labs' dot(1)
> --- postscript output, produced from the .dot source

Wonderful; thanks!

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 13:33    [W:0.057 / U:0.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site