Re: Fwd: [bug] as_merged_requests(): possible recursive locking detected

up. > I doubt a bug in lockdep. Here we just swap the pointers but use the addresses themselves to order locks. And we do not change the contents(lock) in those addresses. So it could be a lockdep bug. Thanks Nikanth Karthikesan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscrib

Re: [bug] as_merged_requests(): possible recursive locking detected

On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 11:12 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01 2008, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 23:14 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > Jens, > > > > > > AS still has some locking issues - see the lockdep wa

Re: [bug] as_merged_requests(): possible recursive locking detected

etter, instead of the address of the container. Now while adding a new member to io_context, one should not forget to add it here. Also copying whole io_context and then restoring the locks might have a window where this warning could be triggered. Thanks Nikanth Karthikesan Do not swap locks while

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] block/elevator: change nr_requests handling

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 19:19 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29 2008, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > > The /sys/block/whateverdisk/queue/nr_requests is used to limit the > > number of requests allocated per queue. There can be atmost nr_requests > > read requests

Re: [PATCH] [RFC] block/elevator: change nr_requests handling

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 22:59 +0530, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > Check for nr_requests only when io schedulers dispatch > > Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Jens, The patch is against 2.6.24. Before the block/ll_rw_blk.c splitup. Thanks Nikanth -- T

[PATCH] [RFC] block/elevator: change nr_requests handling

. Thanks Nikanth Check for nr_requests only when io schedulers dispatch Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/block/as-iosched.c b/block/as-iosched.c index cb5e53b..39b58cf 100644 --- a/block/as-iosched.c +++ b/block/as-iosched.c @@ -931,9 +931,12 @@ static

[PATCH] Random number driver: make random_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function

The random_ioctl is registered as an ioctl function but it does not require BKL to be held when called. Changing it as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/random.c b/drivers/char/random.c index 5fee056..2446e14

Re: Query on lock protection in random number driver

On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 12:12 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Also the globals random_read_wakeup_thresh and > > random_write_wakeup_thresh are not at all protected by any locks! Why > > locks are not needed for the

Query on lock protection in random number driver

(). Either it should be lock protected or made as atomic_t, right? Also the globals random_read_wakeup_thresh and random_write_wakeup_thresh are not at all protected by any locks! Why locks are not needed for these? Sorry, if that was a stupid question. Thanks Nikanth Karthikesan -- To

[PATCH 11/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : via

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/via_drv.c b/drivers/char/drm/via_drv.c index 2d4957a..a8041c5 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/via_drv.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/via_drv.c @@ -62,7

[PATCH 8/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : savage

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/savage_drv.c b/drivers/char/drm/savage_drv.c index eee52aa..021de44 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/savage_drv.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/savage_drv.c @@

[PATCH 9/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : sis

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/sis_drv.c b/drivers/char/drm/sis_drv.c index 7dacc64..1bbde29 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/sis_drv.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/sis_drv.c @@ -80,7

[PATCH 10/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : tdfx

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/tdfx_drv.c b/drivers/char/drm/tdfx_drv.c index 012ff2e..ec5a43e 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/tdfx_drv.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/tdfx_drv.c @@ -48,7

[PATCH 7/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : Radeon

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/radeon_drv.c b/drivers/char/drm/radeon_drv.c index 349ac3d..6d7588c 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/radeon_drv.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/radeon_drv.c @@

[PATCH 5/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : mga

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/mga_drv.c b/drivers/char/drm/mga_drv.c index 5572939..be31707 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/mga_drv.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/mga_drv.c @@ -67,7

[PATCH 6/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : r128

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/r128_drv.c b/drivers/char/drm/r128_drv.c index 6108e75..b2a16a7 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/r128_drv.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/r128_drv.c @@ -62,7

[PATCH 3/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : i830

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/i830_dma.c b/drivers/char/drm/i830_dma.c index 69a363e..2f82480 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/i830_dma.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/i830_dma.c @@ -117,7

[PATCH 4/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : i915

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/i915_drv.c b/drivers/char/drm/i915_drv.c index 85bcc27..70a882e 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/i915_drv.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/i915_drv.c @@ -64,7

[PATCH 2/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function : i810

Register drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/char/drm/i810_dma.c b/drivers/char/drm/i810_dma.c index eb381a7..e3adbf3 100644 --- a/drivers/char/drm/i810_dma.c +++ b/drivers/char/drm/i810_dma.c @@ -115,7

[PATCH 1/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function

The ioctl handlers are called with the BKL held, where as unlocked_ioctl handlers are not. The drm_ioctl function is registered as an ioctl handler. But it does not need the BKL to be held. Changing drm_ioctl to register as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EM

[PATCH 1/11 ] Change drm_ioctl as an unlocked_ioctl function

The ioctl handlers are called with the BKL held, where as unlocked_ioctl handlers are not. The drm_ioctl function is registered as an ioctl handler. But it does not need the BKL to be held. Changing drm_ioctl to register as an unlocked_ioctl function. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EM

Re: [PATCH] Change paride driver to use unlocked_ioctl instead of ioctl

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 16:01 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > > default: > > > > > printk("%s: Unimplemented ioctl 0x%x\n", tape->name, > > > > > cmd); > > > > > + unlock_kernel(); > > > > > return -EINVAL; > >

Re: [PATCH] Change paride driver to use unlocked_ioctl instead of ioctl

istering unlocked_ioctl handler instead of registering ioctl handler. Also changed the return value to -ENOTTY for invalid ioctls. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/block/paride/pt.c b/drivers/block/paride/pt.c index b91accf..b7215fa 100644 ---

Re: [PATCH] Change paride driver to use unlocked_ioctl instead of ioctl

s... > Is this following coding style, fine? The ioctl handler is called with the BKL held. Registering unlocked_ioctl handler instead of registering ioctl handler. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/drivers/block/paride/pt.c b/drivers/block/paride/

Re: [PATCH] Change paride driver to use unlocked_ioctl instead of ioctl

Sorry missed the function prototype and includes earlier. Here is the corrected patch. Build tested. The ioctl handler is called with the BKL held. Registering unlocked_ioctl handler instead of registering ioctl handler. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff -

[PATCH] Change paride driver to use unlocked_ioctl instead of ioctl

The ioctl handler is called with the BKL held. Registering unlocked_ioctl handler instead of registering ioctl handler. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_64.c diff --git a/drivers

[PATCH] Change x86 Machine check handler to use unlocked_iocl instead of ioctl

ge the Machine check handler to use unlocked_ioctl instead of ioctl handler. Also the mce ioctl handler does not need any lock protection. Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_64.c i

Re: [PATCH] sched: minor optimization

> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 5:48 PM, "Dmitry Adamushko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only legitimate possibility of having the fair_sched_class > returning no task in this case is when 'rq->nr_running == > rq->cfs.nr_running == 0'. Yes, I think so. > iow, a possible optimization would be just

[PATCH] sched: minor optimization

As an optimization, if all tasks are in the fair class, the next task is directly picked from fair_sched_class. But, if it returns no task we go through again from sched_class_highest which could be avoided and instead return the idle task directly. Signed-off-by : Nikanth Karthikesan <[EM