[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1258714328.11284.522.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:52:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, mpm@...enic.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 12:38 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 2) propagate the nesting information and user spin_lock_nested(), given
> > that slab is already a rat's nest, this won't make it any less obvious.
>
> spin_lock_nested() doesn't really help us here because there's a
> _real_ possibility of a recursive spin lock here, right?
Well, I was working under the assumption that your analysis of it being
a false positive was right ;-)
I briefly tried to verify that, but got lost and gave up, at which point
I started looking for ways to annotate.
If you're now saying its a real deadlock waiting to happen, then the
quick fix is to always do the call_rcu() thing, or a slightly longer fix
might be to take that slab object and propagate it out up the callchain
and free it once we drop the nc->lock for the current __cache_free() or
something.
--
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