On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:36:57 +0000
Paulo Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > [...]
> > No, it is not called lock order reversal.
> >
> > There are no places like
> > lock a
> > lock b
> > unlock a
> > unlock b
>
> This would be perfectly fine. The order of unlocking doesn't really
> matter. It is the actual locking that must be carried out on the same
> order everywhere to guarantee that there are no deadlocks.
It is bad style, and since unlocking changes the order someone
may pass wrong locking.
> > and if they are, then I'm completely wrong.
> >
> > What you see is only following:
> >
> > place 1:
> > lock a
> > lock b
> > unlock b
> > lock c
> > unlock c
> > unlock a
> >
> > place 2:
> > lock b
> > lock a
> > unlock a
> > lock c
> > unlock c
> > unlock b
>
> I haven't look at the code yet, but this is a deadlock waiting to
> happen. "place 1" gets "lock a", then is interrupted and "place 2" gets
> "lock b". "place 2" waits forever for "lock a" and "place 1" waits
> forever for "lock b". Deadlock.
As I said, that pathes are mutually exclusive - common pathes are guarded
by one lock always.
> --
> Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
>
> "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
> Lao-tzu, The Way of Lao-tzu
Evgeniy Polyakov
Only failure makes us experts. -- Theo de Raadt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
