Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 00:14:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 00:14:27 -0500 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:5855 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 00:14:27 -0500 Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 21:25:00 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Dawson Engler Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [CHECKER] potential deadlocks Message-Id: <20030302212500.72fe9b87.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <200303030335.h233ZTt07857@csl.stanford.edu> References: <200303030335.h233ZTt07857@csl.stanford.edu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2003 05:24:46.0317 (UTC) FILETIME=[341E01D0:01C2E145] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 991 Lines: 25 Dawson Engler wrote: > > Any feedback on the results would be great. My understanding of linux's > sprawling locking rules is less than impressive. We would be impressed if it wasn't :) > Also, if there are > known deadlocks, let me know and I can make sure we're finding them. There are some real ones there. The ones surrounding lock_kernel() and semaphores are false positives. lock_kernel() is special, in that the lock is dropped when the caller performs a voluntary context switch. So there are no ordering requirements between lock_kernel and the sleeping locks down(), down_read(), down_write(). lock_kernel() inside a spinlock is not necessarily a bug, but almost always is. It should be warned about. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/