On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 09:56:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:33:29PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 11:17:10AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > >
> > > lock(A)
> > > wait_for(B)
> > > <- serialized by atomic operati
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:33:29PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 11:17:10AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> >
> > lock(A)
> > wait_for(B)
> > <- serialized by atomic operation
> > lock(A)
> > unlock(A)
> > wake(B)
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 11:17:10AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> lock(A)
> wait_for(B)
> <- serialized by atomic operation
> lock(A)
> unlock(A)
> wake(B)
> unlock(A)
By the way, I have a question. Is there anyone who could ans
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 08:49:43AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:42:59PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > +2. A lock has dependency with all locks in the releasing context,
> > > > having
> > > > + been held since the lock was held.
> > >
> > > But you canno
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:42:59PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
[snip]
> > > +2. A lock has dependency with all locks in the releasing context, having
> > > + been held since the lock was held.
> >
> > But you cannot tell this. The 'since the lock was held' thing fully
> > depends on timing and
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:45:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +Crossrelease lock dependency check
> > +==
> > +
> > +Started by Byungchul Park
> > +
> > +Contents:
> > +
> > + (*) What is a problem?
> > +
> > + - Original lockdep's assumptions.
> > + -
So I really could not understand your initial changelogs, this text
seem to be somewhat better, so let me try and comment on this.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 01:15:38PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> +++ b/Documentation/locking/crossrelease.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,276 @@
> +Crossrelease lock dependency ch
7 matches
Mail list logo
