Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 12:40:17 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     "Liu, Yongxin" <Yongxin.Liu@windriver.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "dan.j.williams@intel.com" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        "pagupta@redhat.com" <pagupta@redhat.com>,
        "Gortmaker, Paul" <Paul.Gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT] nvdimm: make lane acquirement RT aware
Message-ID: <20190318114017.tazjaegln2obt3zg@linutronix.de>
References: <20190306095709.23138-1-yongxin.liu@windriver.com>
 <20190307143344.ytsnbmot5tjzjhip@linutronix.de>
 <597B109EC20B76429F71A8A97770610D12A52669@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com>
 <20190308094131.ge4wbsvz4p6xikdf@linutronix.de>
 <597B109EC20B76429F71A8A97770610D12A5643B@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com>
 <20190315164236.rzbwe7reeprjv3um@linutronix.de>
 <597B109EC20B76429F71A8A97770610D12A63C81@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <597B109EC20B76429F71A8A97770610D12A63C81@ALA-MBD.corp.ad.wrs.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-03-18 01:41:10 [+0000], Liu, Yongxin wrote:
> 
> Consider the recursive call to nd_region_acquire_lane() in the following situation.
> Will there be a dead lock?
> 
> 
>     Thread A                    Thread B
>        |                           |
>        |                           |
>      CPU 1                       CPU 2
>        |                           |
>        |                           |
>  get lock for Lane 1         get lock for Lane 2
>        |                           |
>        |                           |
>  migrate to CPU 2            migrate to CPU 1
>        |                           |
>        |                           |
>  wait lock for Lane 2        wait lock for Lane 1 
>        |                           |
>        |                           |
>        _____________________________
>                    |
>                 dead lock ?

Bummer. That would dead lock indeed.
Is it easily possible to recognize the recursive case? 

> 
> Thanks,
> Yognxin

Sebastian