Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757655AbYAPIM2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:12:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753644AbYAPIMT (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:12:19 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:54114 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753585AbYAPIMS (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:12:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:11:56 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Johannes Berg , Dave Young , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc7 lockdep warning when poweroff Message-ID: <20080116081155.GA10019@elte.hu> References: <1200302644.7415.6.camel@twins> <1200306902.5887.39.camel@johannes.berg> <1200307288.7415.11.camel@twins> <1200307896.5887.42.camel@johannes.berg> <1200393685.5887.113.camel@johannes.berg> <1200399661.26045.13.camel@twins> <1200400787.5887.129.camel@johannes.berg> <1200401245.26045.19.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1200401245.26045.19.camel@twins> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1036 Lines: 25 * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > The patch looks ok, one important thing to note is that it means > > > that all workqueues instantiated by the same __create_workqueue() > > > call-site share lock dependency chains - I'm unsure if that might > > > get us into trouble or not. > > > > It doesn't seem to have so far ;) I don't think it should. If some > > code allocates a per-instance workqueue that's much like having an > > inode lock or so. > > We had to split up the inode lock to per filesystem classes, just > because the lock chains were conflicting between them... i.e. filesystems can legally have different locking rules wrt. i_lock. I dont really like it (we should have as simple locking rules as possible) but it is the VFS status quo :) Ingo -- 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/