lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: lockdep false positive in double_lock_balance()?
> *phew* you actually made me think there ;-)

Sorry for that.

> The race you describe exists, except that's not how lockdep works. Both
> cpu's would have a different task (one would hope to presume) and the
> held lock stack is per task. So even if busiest_rq on cpu1 (lock case)
> is the same lock as this_rq on cpu0 (unlock case), they're in different
> stacks with different states.

Got it. I confused myself between user processes (which might have
multiple threads on multiple CPUs) and kernel tasks.

> Something like this should fix it I think..

Thanks, I'll throw this in and let you know if we see this again.
But it's very rare so hard to know one way or another for quite
a while.

- R.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-18 20:21    [W:0.073 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site