From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752181AbbIEM0j (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:26:39 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0115.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.115]:41608 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751442AbbIEM03 (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:26:29 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3350:3622:3865:3867:3871:4470:5007:6119:6261:7875:7901:7903:10004:10400:10848:10967:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12663:12740:13069:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: guide49_8faba9259fb5c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1738 Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:26:26 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users , Carsten Emde , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , John Kacur , Paul Gortmaker , Peter Zijlstra , Clark Williams , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH RT 0/3] RT: Fix trylock deadlock without msleep() hack Message-ID: <20150905082626.00a20902@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20150905120457.GA21338@gmail.com> References: <20150904011900.730816481@goodmis.org> <20150905120457.GA21338@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 14:04:57 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > So why not do: > > lock(B); > if (!trylock(A)) { > unlock(B); > lock(A); > lock(B); > } > > ? > > Or, if this can be done, why didn't we do: > > lock(A); > lock(B); > > to begin with? > > i.e. I'm not sure the problem is properly specified. Yeah, this is actually the solution I came up with before. I misread what Thomas wrote. His is slightly different. -- Steve