| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A few days ago Arjan signaled a lockdep red flag on epoll locks, and
precisely between the epoll's device structure lock (->lock) and the wait
queue head lock (->lock).
Like I explained in another email, and directly to Arjan, this can't happen
in reality because of the explicit check at eventpoll.c:592, that does not
allow to drop an epoll fd inside the same epoll fd. Since lockdep is
working on per-structure locks, it will never be able to know of policies
enforced in other parts of the code.
It was decided time ago of having the ability to drop epoll fds inside
other epoll fds, that triggers a very trick wakeup operations (due to
possibly reentrant callback-driven wakeups) handled by the
ep_poll_safewake() function. While looking again at the code though, I
noticed that all the operations done on the epoll's main structure wait
queue head (->wq) are already protected by the epoll lock (->lock), so that
locked-style functions can be used to manipulate the ->wq member. This
makes both a lock-acquire save, and lockdep happy.
Running totalmess on my dual opteron for a while did not reveal any problem
so far:
http://www.xmailserver.org/totalmess.c
Signed-off-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
|
