From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 20 08:29:24 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E09D16A4CE for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hanoi.cronyx.ru (hanoi.cronyx.ru [144.206.181.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632FB43D2D for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rik@cronyx.ru) Received: (from root@localhost) by hanoi.cronyx.ru id i7K8Q7a6026904 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org.checked; (8.12.8/vak/2.1) Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:26:07 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from rik@cronyx.ru) Received: from cronyx.ru (hi.cronyx.ru [144.206.181.94]) by hanoi.cronyx.ru with ESMTP id i7K8MeJM026749; (8.12.8/vak/2.1) Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:22:40 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from rik@cronyx.ru) Message-ID: <4125B51B.4030702@cronyx.ru> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:23:55 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Long References: <41252924.4020305@cronyx.ru> <41252ECC.5000203@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <41252ECC.5000203@samsco.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tracking down LORs X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:29:24 -0000 Scott Long wrote: > Roman Kurakin wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Currently I am trying to track down a couple of LORS >> in my code. But it seems that I do not undestand smth or all >> things id realy so bad. >> >> So I want to ask some questions to find out if my thoughts >> correct or wrong. >> >> 1. If I am right LOR means that we have at least two mutexs. >> Lets call them a and b. If we set a, then b in first case >> and b then a in second we could get dead loop, and thus LOR. > > Correct. > >> 2. If I have some driver that have mutex a, and we have some >> sytem code that could call this driver with Giant (b), we would >> get LOR if driver lock a and some other part of system will >> try to lock Giant? > > The general rule is that NO other locks should be held when Giant > is grabbed. Probably I need a bit more grepping to find out how to turn off Giant locking for other callbacks. But at first I have to find out a reason of panic that I see on my screen with recent Current(Generic). Heh ... ;-) rik > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >