On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:03:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 07:53:47PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:42:30PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 02:12:11PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > [...] > > > > +Example 1: > > > > + > > > > + CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > > > + --------- --------- > > > > + mutext_lock A > > > > + lock_page B > > > > + lock_page B > > > > + mutext_lock A /* DEADLOCK */ > > > > > > s/mutext_lock/mutex_lock > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > +Example 3: > > > > + > > > > + CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > > > + --------- --------- > > > > + mutex_lock A > > > > + mutex_lock A > > > > + mutex_unlock A > > > > + wait_for_complete B /* DEADLOCK */ > > > > > > I think this part better be: > > > > > > CONTEXT X CONTEXT Y > > > --------- --------- > > > mutex_lock A > > > mutex_lock A > > > wait_for_complete B /* DEADLOCK */ > > > mutex_unlock A > > > > > > , right? Because Y triggers DEADLOCK before X could run mutex_unlock(). > > > > There's no different between two examples. > > There is.. > > > No matter which one is chosen, mutex_lock A in CONTEXT X cannot be passed. > > But your version shows it does mutex_unlock() before CONTEXT Y does > wait_for_completion(). > > The thing about these diagrams is that both columns are assumed to have > the same timeline. X cannot acquire mutex A because Y already acquired it. In order words, all statements below mutex_lock A in X cannot run. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>