| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Oleg Nesterov recently noticed that the lockdep annotations in lglock.c
are not sufficient to detect some obvious deadlocks, such as
lg_local_lock(LOCK) + lg_local_lock(LOCK) or spin_lock(X) +
lg_local_lock(Y) vs lg_local_lock(Y) + spin_lock(X).
Both issues are easily fixed by indicating to lockdep that lglock's local
locks are not recursive. We shouldn't use the rwlock acquire/release
functions here, as lglock doesn't share the same semantics. Instead we
can base our lockdep annotations on the lock_acquire_shared (for local
lglock) and lock_acquire_exclusive (for global lglock) helpers.
I am not proposing new lglock specific helpers as I don't see the point of
the existing second level of helpers :)
Noticed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20130708212352.1769031C15E@corp2gmr1-1.hot.corp.google.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
