On 12/07/2012 03:32 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 01:06 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> The root-cause of this deadlock is again lock-ordering mismatch right? >> CPU0 takes locks in order A, B >> CPU1 takes locks in order B, A >> >> And the writer facilitates in actually getting deadlocked. >> >> I avoid this in this patchset by always taking the locks in the same >> order. So we won't be deadlocking like this. > > OK, I haven't looked closely at the patch yet. I'm currently hacking on > my own problems. But just from the description above, it looked like you > were using rw_locks() to be able to inverse the order of the locks. >
Ah, ok, no problem! I'd be grateful if you could take a look when you are free :-) I'll post a v3 soon, which has a completely redesigned synchronization scheme, to address the performance concerns related to global rwlocks that Tejun raised. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
