Re: + lock-validator-special-locking-schedc.patch added to -mm tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 01:09:04 -0700
akpm@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> 
> The patch titled
> 
>      lock validator: special locking: sched.c
> 
> has been added to the -mm tree.  Its filename is
> 
>      lock-validator-special-locking-schedc.patch
> 
> See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
> out what to do about this
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: lock validator: special locking: sched.c
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Teach special (recursive) locking code to the lock validator.  Has no effect
> on non-lockdep kernels.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 
>  kernel/sched.c |    8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -puN kernel/sched.c~lock-validator-special-locking-schedc kernel/sched.c
> --- devel/kernel/sched.c~lock-validator-special-locking-schedc	2006-06-03 01:05:22.000000000 -0700
> +++ devel-akpm/kernel/sched.c	2006-06-03 01:05:22.000000000 -0700
> @@ -1916,7 +1916,7 @@ static void double_rq_unlock(runqueue_t 
>  	__releases(rq1->lock)
>  	__releases(rq2->lock)
>  {
> -	spin_unlock(&rq1->lock);
> +	spin_unlock_non_nested(&rq1->lock);
>  	if (rq1 != rq2)
>  		spin_unlock(&rq2->lock);
>  	else
> @@ -2555,7 +2555,7 @@ static int load_balance_newidle(int this
>  		nr_moved = move_tasks(this_rq, this_cpu, busiest,
>  					minus_1_or_zero(busiest->nr_running),
>  					imbalance, sd, NEWLY_IDLE, NULL);
> -		spin_unlock(&busiest->lock);
> +		spin_unlock_non_nested(&busiest->lock);
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!nr_moved) {
> @@ -2640,7 +2640,7 @@ static void active_load_balance(runqueue
>  	else
>  		schedstat_inc(sd, alb_failed);
>  out:
> -	spin_unlock(&target_rq->lock);
> +	spin_unlock_non_nested(&target_rq->lock);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -6582,7 +6582,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
>  		prio_array_t *array;
>  
>  		rq = cpu_rq(i);
> -		spin_lock_init(&rq->lock);
> +		spin_lock_init_static(&rq->lock);
>  		rq->nr_running = 0;
>  		rq->active = rq->arrays;
>  		rq->expired = rq->arrays + 1;

rofl.  Let me try that again...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies FAQ]     [Kernel Archive]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux