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 05:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 02:00:33PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
    >> 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.
    >
    > Looks like this isn't going to work due to ep_poll_safewake taking
    > another waitqueue lock. If we had a strict lock order it might work,
    > but the mess in ep_call_nested makes me fear it doesn't.
    >

    hmmm...I'm not sure how this suggestion would change the locking rules
    from what we currently have. Right now, we use ep->lock, if we remove
    that and use ep->wq->lock instead, there is just a 1-to-1 mapping there
    that has not changed, since ep->wq->lock currently is completely not
    being used.

    Thanks,

    -Jason

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-12-01 23:35    [W:4.271 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site