Re: [PATCH v2 -mm -next] ipc,sem: fix lockdep false positive

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 19:50 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> So, there are a few things I don't like about spin_unlock_wait():
> 
> 1- From a lock ordering point of view, it is strictly equivalent to
> taking the lock and then releasing it - and yet, lockdep won't catch
> any deadlocks that involve spin_unlock_wait. (Not your fault here,
> this should be fixed as a separate change in lockdep. I manually
> looked at the lock ordering here and found it safe).

Ooh, I never noticed that, but indeed this shouldn't be hard to cure.

> 2- With the current ticket lock implementation, a stream of lockers
> can starve spin_unlock_wait() forever. Once again, not your fault and
> I suspect this could be fixed - I expect spin_unlock_wait() callers
> actually only want to know that the lock has been passed on, not that
> it actually got to an unlocked state.

I suppose the question is do we want to fix it or have both semantics
and use lock+unlock where appropriate.


--
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/