[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PI patch against 2.6.16-rt9
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 22:17 +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
> I think we talk about the situation

No, we talk about existing lock chains L(0) --> L(n).

> B locks 1 C locks 2 D locks 3
> B locks 2, boosts C and block
> A locks 2
> A is boost B
> A drop it's spinlocks and is preempted
> C unlocks 2 and auto unboosts
> B is running
> B locks 3, boosts C and blocks
> A gets a CPU again
> A boosts B
> A boosts D
> Is there anything wrong with that?
> And in the case where A==D there indeed is a deadlock which will be
> detected.

If you get to L(x) the underlying dependencies might have changed
already as well as the dependencies x ... n. We might get false
positives in the deadlock detection that way, as a deadlock is an
"atomic" state.


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: 2006-03-28 23:38    [W:0.054 / U:0.564 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site