[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060905181241.GC16207@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:12:41 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: lockdep oddity
* Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com> wrote:
> The lock validator gives me this (latest -mm and 2.6.18-rc6):
>
> =====================================
> [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> -------------------------------------
> swapper/0 is trying to release lock (resource_lock) at:
> [<0000000000042842>] request_resource+0x52/0x88
> but there are no more locks to release!
>
> The reason is that the BUILD_LOCK_OPS macros in kernel/lockdep.c don't
> contain any of the *_acquire calls, while all of the _unlock functions
> contain a *_release call. Hence I get immediately unbalanced locks.
hmmm ... that sounds like a bug. Weird - i recently ran
PREEMPT+SMP+LOCKDEP kernels and didnt notice this.
> Found this will debugging some random memory corruptions that happen
> when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and CONFIG_PROFILE_LIKELY are both on.
> Switching both off or having only one of them on seems to work.
previously i had some weirdnesses with PROFILE_LIKELY too, they were
caused by it generating cross-calls from within lockdep. Do the
corruptions go away if you remove all likely() and unlikely() markings
from kernel/lockdep.c?
Ingo
-
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