Re: Lock ordering, inquiring minds want to know.

Mike Kravetz wrote: > > George, > > I can't answer your question. However, have you noticed that this > lock ordering has changed in the test11 kernel. The new sequence is: > > read_lock_irq(_lock); > spin_lock(_lock); > > Perhaps the person who made this change could

Re: Lock ordering, inquiring minds want to know.

Mike Kravetz wrote: George, I can't answer your question. However, have you noticed that this lock ordering has changed in the test11 kernel. The new sequence is: read_lock_irq(tasklist_lock); spin_lock(runqueue_lock); Perhaps the person who made this change could

Lock ordering, inquiring minds want to know.

In looking over sched.c I find: spin_lock_irq(_lock); read_lock(_lock); This seems to me to be the wrong order of things. The read lock unavailable (some one holds a write lock) for relatively long periods of time, for example, wait holds it in a while loop. On the other hand

Lock ordering, inquiring minds want to know.

In looking over sched.c I find: spin_lock_irq(runqueue_lock); read_lock(tasklist_lock); This seems to me to be the wrong order of things. The read lock unavailable (some one holds a write lock) for relatively long periods of time, for example, wait holds it in a while loop.