[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1205769546.10849.43.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:59:06 -0500
From: Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/18] GB pages hugetlb support
On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 16:33 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I bet copy_hugetlb_page_range() is causing your complaints. It takes
> > the dest_mm->page_table_lock followed by src_mm->page_table_lock inside
> > a loop and hasn't yet been converted to call spin_lock_nested(). A
> > harmless false positive.
>
> Yes. Looking at the warning I'm not sure why lockdep doesn't filter
> it out automatically. I cannot think of a legitimate case where
> a "possible recursive lock" with different lock addresses would be
> a genuine bug.
>
> So instead of a false positive, it's more like a "always false" :)
>
> >
> > > - hugemmap04 from LTP fails. Cause unknown currently
> >
> > I am not sure how well LTP is tracking mainline development in this
> > area. How do these patches do with the libhugetlbfs test suite? We are
>
> I wasn't aware of that one.
Libhugetlbfs comes with a rigorous functional test suite. It has test
cases for specific bugs that have since been fixed. I ran it on your
patches and got an oops around hugetlb_overcommit_handler() when running
the 'counters' test.
--
Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com)
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
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