| Date | Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:33:15 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [0/18] GB pages hugetlb support |
| |
> 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.
-Andi
|