lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [0/18] GB pages hugetlb support
From
Date

On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 16:33 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I bet copy_hugetlb_page_range() is causing your complaints. It takes
> > the dest_mm->page_table_lock followed by src_mm->page_table_lock inside
> > a loop and hasn't yet been converted to call spin_lock_nested(). A
> > harmless false positive.
>
> Yes. Looking at the warning I'm not sure why lockdep doesn't filter
> it out automatically. I cannot think of a legitimate case where
> a "possible recursive lock" with different lock addresses would be
> a genuine bug.
>
> So instead of a false positive, it's more like a "always false" :)
>
> >
> > > - hugemmap04 from LTP fails. Cause unknown currently
> >
> > I am not sure how well LTP is tracking mainline development in this
> > area. How do these patches do with the libhugetlbfs test suite? We are
>
> I wasn't aware of that one.

Libhugetlbfs comes with a rigorous functional test suite. It has test
cases for specific bugs that have since been fixed. I ran it on your
patches and got an oops around hugetlb_overcommit_handler() when running
the 'counters' test.

--
Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com)
IBM Linux Technology Center



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-17 17:01    [W:0.120 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site