Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:54:51 +0200 | | From | Heiko Carstens <> | | Subject | Re: lockdep oddity |
| |
> > > > The reason is that the BUILD_LOCK_OPS macros in kernel/lockdep.c > > > > don't contain any of the *_acquire calls, while all of the _unlock > > > > functions contain a *_release call. Hence I get immediately > > > > unbalanced locks. > > > > > > hmmm ... that sounds like a bug. Weird - i recently ran > > > PREEMPT+SMP+LOCKDEP kernels and didnt notice this. > > > > ok, the reason i didnt find this problem is because this is fixed in > > my tree, but i didnt realize that it's a fix also for upstream ... > > actually ... it works fine in the upstream kernel due to this: > > * If lockdep is enabled then we use the non-preemption spin-ops > * even on CONFIG_PREEMPT, because lockdep assumes that interrupts are > * not re-enabled during lock-acquire (which the preempt-spin-ops do): > */ > #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || !defined(CONFIG_SMP) || \ > defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC) > > so i'm wondering, how did you you manage to get into the > BUILD_LOCK_OPS() branch?
That seems to be code that isn't upstream. 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 as well as Linus' current git tree have this:
/* * If lockdep is enabled then we use the non-preemption spin-ops * even on CONFIG_PREEMPT, because lockdep assumes that interrupts are * not re-enabled during lock-acquire (which the preempt-spin-ops do): */ #if !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT) || !defined(CONFIG_SMP) || \ defined(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING) And yes, using CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC instead of CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING fixes this for me :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |