[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5111BD28.50407@candelatech.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:17:12 -0800
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Question on lockdep and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
On 02/05/2013 05:54 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I'm not sure the swapper task is part of the 'do_each_thread()' loop.
>
> Perhaps what you want to do is add a:
>
> lockdep_print_held_locks(current);
I'll add that and test...
> I'm curious. Does your code grab a read lock? If you grab the same read
> lock multiple times it adds to the list each time. Thus if you have
> anything like:
>
> for (i = 0; i < 100; i++ ) {
> read_lock(&lock);
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
> read_unlock(&lock);
> }
>
> That will fill up the held locks quite a bit.
>
> The above code I showed is ridiculous and I doubt you have it, but if
> you have something that does lots of recursive reads for some reason,
> that could be an issue.
I have only one read/write lock in my module, and it looks like
I always lock it as a writer (will fix that soon for performance
reasons, but it should be valid locking I think).
I have no rcu locks at all in my module currently.
I've seen similar lockups on another machine that does not use
this module, but it uses a hacked up pktgen. I haven't found
a test case that reproduces this on a clean upstream build,
but I am still fairly suspicious that it isn't my code.
Famous last words I'm sure :)
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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