lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: lockdep oddity
Date
Maybe we should define raw __likely/__unlikely which behave the same way as the vanilla and use them in places like spinlocks to
avoid these weird problems.

> * Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > The lock validator gives me this (latest -mm and 2.6.18-rc6):
> >
> > =====================================
> > [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> > -------------------------------------
> > swapper/0 is trying to release lock (resource_lock) at:
> > [<0000000000042842>] request_resource+0x52/0x88 but there
> are no more
> > locks to release!
> >
> > 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.
>
> > Found this will debugging some random memory corruptions
> that happen
> > when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and CONFIG_PROFILE_LIKELY are both on.
> > Switching both off or having only one of them on seems to work.
>
> previously i had some weirdnesses with PROFILE_LIKELY too,
> they were caused by it generating cross-calls from within
> lockdep. Do the corruptions go away if you remove all
> likely() and unlikely() markings from kernel/lockdep.c?
>
> Ingo

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-09-05 21:05    [W:0.138 / U:15.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site