Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [0/18] GB pages hugetlb support | From | Adam Litke <> | Date | Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:59:06 -0500 |
| |
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
| |