On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 04:26:04PM +0100, Syrjala Ville (Nokia-D/Helsinki) wrote: > [...] > > > Just tried it and seems to be mostly OK. We get lockdep checking as a > > > bonus. It didn't like setup_plane taking the same rwsem twice so I > > > added a check to see if the old and new regions are the same and just > > > lock once in that case. I thought rwsem was supposed to be OK with > > > read recursion but perhaps I was mitaken, or perhaps it's just lockdep > > > that's misbehaving. > > > > Ah ok, so it's not so obvious change. Nested read locks could really lead > > to a deadlock I think. A read lock will block if there is a write waiter > > in the queue to avoid write starvation.. > > Yes but I think in out case it should be fine because if we hit this: > > t thread 1 thread 2 > | > | down_read(0) > | down_write(1) > v down_read(1) > > then thread 2 will eventually do a up_write() without taking any > other region rwsem, and thread 1 can then continue. Yes and things will work fine with the extra ordering you added. But lockdep was right in that without the ordering you can get - the not too likely - scenario: t thread 1 thread 2 thread 3 thread 4 | down_read(0) | down_write(0) | down_read(1) | down_write(1) | down_read(1) v down_read(0) --Imre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
