Re: [RT] Lockdep warning on boot with 2.6.31-rc5-rt1.1

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:45 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > The other proposal was creating a fixed list of classes and register
> > > each device at a class corresponding to its depth in the tree. I can't
> > > remember what was wrong with that, but I seem to have been persuaded
> > > that that was hard too.
> > 
> > It probably would work for the most part.  However a possible scenario
> > involves first locking a parent and then locking all its children.  (I
> > don't know if this ever happens anywhere, but it might.)  This can't
> > cause a deadlock but it would run into trouble with depth-based
> > classes.
> 
> If you know which parent is locked, we can solve that with
> mutex_lock_nest_lock() [ doesn't currently exist, but is analogous to
> spin_lock_nest_lock() ] and together with
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/23/222 that would allow you to lock up to
> 2048 children.

Not only do I know not which parent is locked, I don't even know if 
this ever happens anywhere at all!  My point was purely theoretical.

> Would something like that work?

Perhaps -- I don't understand what spin_lock_nest_lock() is supposed to
do.

Alan Stern

--
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/