[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080322134656.173de045@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:46:56 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: How to avoid spurious lockdep warnings?
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:02:11 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> In a Xen system, when a new pagetable is about to be put in use it is
> "pinned", meaning that each page in the pagetable is registered with
> the hypervisor. This is done in arch/x86/xen/mmu.c:pin_page().
>
> In order to make this efficient, the hypercalls for pinning are
> batched, so that multiple pages are submitted at once in a single
> multicall. While a page is batched pending the hypercall, its
> corresponding pte_lock is held.
>
> This means that the code can end up holding multiple pte locks at
> once, though it is guaranteed to never try to hold the same lock at
> once. However, because these locks are in the same lock class, I get
> a spurious warning from lockdep. Is there some way I can get rid of
> this warning?
what's the ordering guarantee between these locks ?
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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