2009/8/8 Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> It used to be that _all_ dev->sem instances were taken on suspend or
>> something like that, I think that got fixed a long while back.
>>
>> I'd have to look at what the current locking requirements for dev->sem
>> are.
>
> It is supposed to be locked whenever the driver core invokes a probe,
> remove, or PM-related callback. Under some circumstances, the parent's
> semaphore is supposed to be locked as well. Individual subsystems may
> have their own requirements in addition to these.
>
> The ordering requirement is: Don't try to acquire a device's lock if
> you already hold the lock for a non-ancestor device. More generally
> (if more obscurely): If you already hold device A's lock, then don't
> try to acquire the lock for device B unless you already hold the lock
> for A & B's most recent common ancestor.
>
It seems that the following case is very common, and A and B have no
common ancestor, but we can hold device A and B's lock at the same
time, can't we?
Thanks.
device A comes in one bus:
device_add()
->bus_attach_device()
->device_attach():drivers/base/dd.c /*holding device A's lock*/
->...drv->probe() /*sleep here some time*/
then device B comes in another bus:
device_add()
->bus_attach_device()
->device_attach():drivers/base/dd.c /*holding device B's lock*/
->...drv->probe() /*sleep here some time*/
--
Lei Ming
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
