Re: PI patch against 2.6.16-rt9

On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 22:17 +0100, Esben Nielsen wrote:
I think we talk about the situation

No, we talk about existing lock chains L(0) --> L(n).

B locks 1 C locks 2 D locks 3
B locks 2, boosts C and block
A locks 2
A is boost B
A drop it's spinlocks and is preempted
C unlocks 2 and auto unboosts
B is running
B locks 3, boosts C and blocks
A gets a CPU again
A boosts B
A boosts D

Is there anything wrong with that?
And in the case where A==D there indeed is a deadlock which will be
detected.

If you get to L(x) the underlying dependencies might have changed
already as well as the dependencies x ... n. We might get false
positives in the deadlock detection that way, as a deadlock is an
"atomic" state.

tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/