lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ksm/memory hotplug: lockdep warning for ksm_thread_mutex vs. (memory_chain).rwsem
On 03.02.2012 00:00, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> 2012/2/2 Gerald Schaefer<gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>:
>> Setting a memory block offline triggers the following lockdep warning. This
>> looks exactly like the issue reported by Kosaki Motohiro in
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/25/110. Seems like the resulting commit a0b0f58cdd
>> did not fix the lockdep warning. I'm able to reproduce it with current 3.3.0-rc2
>> as well as 2.6.37-rc4-00147-ga0b0f58.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with lockdep annotations, but I tried using down_read_nested()
>> for (memory_chain).rwsem, similar to the mutex_lock_nested() which was
>> introduced for ksm_thread_mutex, but that didn't help.
>
> Heh, interesting. Simple question, do you have any user visible buggy
> behavior? or just false positive warn issue?
>
> *_nested() is just hacky trick. so, any change may break their lie.
> Anyway I'd like to dig this one. thanks for reporting.

There is no real deadlock and no user visible buggy behaviour, the memory is
being offlined as requested. I think your conclusion from last time is still
valid, that both locks are inside mem_hotplug_mutex and there can't be a
deadlock. Question is how to convince lockdep of this.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-03 16:41    [W:0.178 / U:0.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site