[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081029145446.081141b4@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:54:46 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.28-rc2-mm1: possible circular locking
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:58:40 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> We've been calling schedule_on_each_cpu() from within
> lru_add_drain_all() for ages. What changed to cause all this
> to start happening?
what started to get these out of the weed is that copy_*_user() is now
annotated to (potentially) take the mmap sem (which it does if there's
a fault)...
previously you had to actually fault to get the lock dependency noticed.
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit atty://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