On Fri, Mar 21 2014, Laura Abbott wrote:
> From: Laura Abbott
> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:01:19 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] cma: Remove potential deadlock situation
>
> CMA locking is currently very coarse. The cma_mutex protects both
> the bitmap and avoids concurrency with alloc_contig_range.
On 2/18/2014 9:44 AM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>> On 2014-02-12 17:33, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> What if we did these changes:
>>>
>>> struct page *dma_alloc_from_contiguous(struct device *dev, int count,
>>> unsigned int align)
>>> {
>>> ...
>>>
> On 2014-02-12 17:33, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> What if we did these changes:
>>
>> struct page *dma_alloc_from_contiguous(struct device *dev, int count,
>> unsigned int align)
>> {
>> ...
>> mutex_lock(_mutex);
>> ...
>> for (;;)
Hello,
On 2014-02-12 17:33, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On 2014-02-11 19:35, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> The cubox-i4 just hit a new lockdep problem - not quite sure what to
> >> make of this - it
Please learn how to trim emails down to contain only the bits relevant to
your reply, thanks.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 03:25:21PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2014-02-12 17:33, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> So, the full locking dependency tree is this:
>>
>> CPU0
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:33:17PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >> -> #3 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
> >> [] __lock_acquire+0x151c/0x1ca0
> >> [] lock_acquire+0xa0/0x130
> >> []
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:29:01PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:33:17PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > >> -> #3 (console_lock){+.+.+.}:
> > >> [] __lock_acquire+0x151c/0x1ca0
> >
Hello,
On 2014-02-11 19:35, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> The cubox-i4 just hit a new lockdep problem - not quite sure what to
> make of this - it looks like an interaction between quite a lot of
> locks - I suspect more than the lockdep code is reporting in its
> "Possible unsafe locking
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2014-02-11 19:35, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> The cubox-i4 just hit a new lockdep problem - not quite sure what to
>> make of this - it looks like an interaction between quite a lot of
>> locks - I suspect
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 06:35:43PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> The cubox-i4 just hit a new lockdep problem - not quite sure what to
> make of this - it looks like an interaction between quite a lot of
> locks - I suspect more than the lockdep code is reporting in its
> "Possible
The cubox-i4 just hit a new lockdep problem - not quite sure what to
make of this - it looks like an interaction between quite a lot of
locks - I suspect more than the lockdep code is reporting in its
"Possible unsafe locking scenario" report.
I'm hoping I've sent this to appropriate people...
11 matches
Mail list logo
