linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0607281332190.20754@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	alokk@...softinc.com, kiran@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Let me know, if you need more info

What type of NUMA system is this? How many nodes? Is memory exhausted on 
some so that allocations are redirected? Are cpusets or memory policies
used to redirect allocations?

Maybe we get confused about local and remote objects due to fallback and 
contamination of the per node lists with foreign node objects. I have a 
patch here that make the slab allocations not fall back and insures that 
cpuset do not interfere but it involves patching the page 
allocator to not do fallback for slab allocations.

Lets see if we can figure this one out first.
-
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/