lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: waitqueue lockdep annotation
From
Date


On 12/01/2017 12:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:07PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
>> Yes, but for those cases it uses the ep->poll_wait waitqueue not the
>> ep->wq, which is guarded by the ep->wq->lock.
>
> True. So it looks like we have one waitqueue in the system that is
> special in providing its own synchronization for waitqueues while
> entirely ignoring the waitqueue code documentation that states that
> waitqueues are internally synchronized.
>
> We could drop the lockdep annotation, updated the documentation and
> not add any validation of the assumptions, or just make epoll fit the
> scheme used by everyone else. So either we can drop these patches, or
> I need to fix up more of the epoll code.
>

You could leave the annotation and do something like:
s/ep->lock/ep->wq->lock. And then that would remove the ep->lock saving
a bit of space.

Thanks,

-Jason

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-01 20:02    [W:0.063 / U:0.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site