[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120508165819.GB10687@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 09:58:19 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next oops in __lock_acquire for process_one_work
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:03:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I think there's a problem if indeed we do silly things like small copies
> like Hugh saw (why would gcc ever generate small copies for objects that
> are naturally aligned and naturally sized?).
>
> Something like the below should fix that problem, but it doesn't explain
> the observed issue..
Hmmm.... Hugh, can you please verify whether this patch makes the
problem go away somehow?
> @@ -1810,7 +1810,7 @@ __acquires(&gcwq->lock)
> * lock freed" warnings as well as problems when looking into
> * work->lockdep_map, make a copy and use that here.
> */
> - struct lockdep_map lockdep_map = work->lockdep_map;
> + struct lockdep_map lockdep_map = lockdep_copy_map(&work->lockdep_map);
If this is the correct fix for whatever reason, maybe we want the copy
interface to be a bit more conventional? lockdep_copy_map(to, from)?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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