[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111003214739.GK2403@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:47:39 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
Cc: Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...oo.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
penberg@...nel.org, mpm@...enic.com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: lockdep recursive locking detected (rcu_kthread / __cache_free)
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 03:46:11PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > The first lock was acquired here in an RCU callback. The later lock that
> > lockdep complained about appears to have been acquired from a recursive
> > call to __cache_free(), with no help from RCU. This looks to me like
> > one of the issues that arise from the slab allocator using itself to
> > allocate slab metadata.
>
> Right. However, this is a false positive since the slab cache with
> the metadata is different from the slab caches with the slab data. The slab
> cache with the metadata does not use itself any metadata slab caches.
Wouldn't it be possible to pass a new flag to the metadata slab caches
upon creation so that their locks could be placed in a separate lock
class? Just allocate a separate lock_class_key structure for each such
lock in that case, and then use lockdep_set_class_and_name to associate
that structure with the corresponding lock. I do this in kernel/rcutree.c
in order to allow the rcu_node tree's locks to nest properly.
Thanx, Paul
--
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