On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Nov 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> [...]
> >> The only action taken is printk() and dump_stack(). No arch code has
> >> been futzed with to provide irq tainting yet. Looks like a good way
> >> to shake out lurking bugs to me (somewhat like may_sleep() etc.).
>
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 04:15:46PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be interesting to keep a ( per task ) list of acquired
> > spinlocks to be able to diagnose cross locks in case of stall ?
> > ( obviously under CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK )
>
> That would appear to require cycle detection, but it sounds like a
> potential breakthrough usage of graph algorithms in the kernel.
> (I've always been told graph algorithms would come back to haunt me.)
> Or maybe not, deadlock detection has been done before.
>
> A separate patch/feature/whatever for deadlock detection could do that
> nicely, though. What I've presented here is meant only to flag far more
> trivial errors with interrupt enablement/disablement than the full
> deadlock detection problem.
It's not realy a graph Bill. Each task has a list of acquired locks (
by address ). You keep __LINE__ and __FILE__ with you list items. When
there's a deadlock you'll have somewhere :
TSK#N TSK#M
-------------
... ...
LCK#I LCK#J
... ...
-> LCK#J LCK#I
Then with a SysReq key you dump the list of acquired locks for each task
who's spinning for a lock. IMO it might be usefull ...
- Davide
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:31 EST