Re: [RFC][PATCH] Fix hang in posix_locks_deadlock()
- From: "George G. Davis" <gdavis@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:05:56 -0400
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:07:50PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
It may take multiple steps to identify a deadlock. With the above
you'll miss deadlocks like
process 1 is requesting a lock held by process 2
process 2 is blocking on a lock held by process 3
process 3 is blocking on a lock held by process 1.
Could you give more details about how you're causing
posix_locks_deadlock to hang? Is there a simple test-case you can post?
Sorry I missed your message due to procmail filters and failure to
read linux-kernel for a week. : )
A bit late now since you've appliead a workaround but FWIW the test
case was posted as a followup to my initial post.
--
Regards,
George
-
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/
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] mm: sysfs: expose the BDI object in sysfs
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] mm: sysfs: expose the BDI object in sysfs
- Previous by thread: Re: kernel 2.6.23: what IS the VM doing?
- Next by thread: Re: [Linux-am33-list] [PATCH 0/2] MN10300: Add the MN10300 architecture to Linux kernel [try #2]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
