[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1154118441.6416.55.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:27:21 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
alokk@...softinc.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free
On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:18 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 08:35 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you need more info, I can add debugs. It happens every bootup.
> > >
> > > Could you tell me why _spin_lock and _spin_unlock seem
> > > to be calling into the slab allocator? Also what is child_rip()? Cannot
> > > find that function upstream.
> >
> > arch/x86_64/kernel/entry.S
>
> Ah. Ok wrong arch. Why does _spin_unlock_irq call child_rip and then end
> up in the slab allocator?
>
> Why does _spin_lock call kmem_cache_free?
>
> Is the stack trace an accurate representation of the calling sequence?
no
not unless the person reporting it has set the various kernel debugging
options, it's only a guestimate with noise in.
>
>
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists