Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/7] lockdep: re-annotate scheduler runqueues

[David Miller]

From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:03:20 +0200

> Instead of using a per-rq lock class, use the regular nesting operations.
> 
> However, take extra care with double_lock_balance() as it can release the
> already held rq->lock (and therefore change its nesting class).
> 
> So what can happen is:
> 
>  spin_lock(rq->lock);	// this rq subclass 0
> 
>  double_lock_balance(rq, other_rq);
>    // release rq
>    // acquire other_rq->lock subclass 0
>    // acquire rq->lock subclass 1
> 
>  spin_unlock(other_rq->lock);
> 
> leaving you with rq->lock in subclass 1
> 
> So a subsequent double_lock_balance() call can try to nest a subclass 1
> lock while already holding a subclass 1 lock.
> 
> Fix this by introducing double_unlock_balance() which releases the other
> rq's lock, but also re-sets the subclass for this rq's lock to 0.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I also tested this on 64-cpu and 128-cpu systems.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/