lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Weird rcu lockdep warning
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 08:57:05PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:24:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:00:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 05:51:11PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > [ . . .]
> >
> > > > Note I just tested the patch the previous one and it looks fine now.
> > > > You can then safely consider the "general idea" fixes the problem :)
> > >
> > > Thank you, Frederic!!!
> >
> > And here is what I hope is the official fix.
> >
> > Could you please test it?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > commit 9be39c445a41e458d53cf9a57d25dbfa4b74c970
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Tue Apr 13 18:45:51 2010 -0700
> >
> > rcu: Make RCU lockdep check the lockdep_recursion variable
> >
> > The lockdep facility temporarily disables lockdep checking by incrementing
> > the current->lockdep_recursion variable. Such disabling happens in NMIs
> > and in other situations where lockdep might expect to recurse on itself.
> > This patch therefore checks current->lockdep_recursion, disabling RCU
> > lockdep splats when this variable is non-zero. In addition, this patch
> > removes the "likely()", as suggested by Lai Jiangshan.
> >
> > Reported-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > Reported-by: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Tested-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>

Thank you, Frederic!

Thanx, Paul


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-15 21:51    [W:0.071 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site