[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060905193742.GA1566@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:37:42 +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
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> ok, the reason i didnt find this problem is because this is fixed in
> my tree, but i didnt realize that it's a fix also for upstream ...
actually ... it works fine in the upstream kernel due to this:
* If lockdep is enabled then we use the non-preemption spin-ops
* even on CONFIG_PREEMPT, because lockdep assumes that interrupts are
* not re-enabled during lock-acquire (which the preempt-spin-ops do):
*/
#if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || !defined(CONFIG_SMP) || \
defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC)
so i'm wondering, how did you you manage to get into the
BUILD_LOCK_OPS() branch?
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