lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes
From
Date
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 10:46 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > Sadly, if you get that annotation wrong you can annotate an actual
> > > > deadlock away.
>
> What's a (contrived as you want) example where that happens?

spinlock_t lock_array[10];

void init_array(void)
{
int i;

for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(lock_array); i++)
spin_lock_init(array + i);
}

void double_lock(int a, int b)
{
spin_lock(lock_array + a);
spin_lock_nested(lock_array + b, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
}

The above places all locks in the array in the same class, it then does
a double lock without order, but tells lockdep the nesting is ok.

A correct version of the double_lock() function would look like:

void double_lock(int a, int b)
{
if (b < a)
swap(a, b);

spin_lock(lock_array + a);
spin_lock_nested(lock_array + b, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
}

This orders the locks in array order.

> > > > This the reason you have to be very careful when
> > > > annotating stuff.
>
> Or alternatively--what do I need to check before I call
> mutex_lock_nested?

That the lock order you tell lockdep is ok, is indeed correct.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-08 17:41    [W:0.072 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site