lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: select_task_rq_fair: WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c match_held_lock
On (08/04/11 17:57), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > > [ 132.794685] WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:3117 match_held_lock+0xf6/0x12e()
> > >
> > > Just to double check, that line is:
> > >
> > > if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!hlock->nest_lock))
> > >
> > > in your kernel source?
> > >
> >
> > Nope, that's `if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!class))'
> >
> > 3106 static int match_held_lock(struct held_lock *hlock, struct lockdep_map *lock)
> > 3107 {
> > 3108 if (hlock->instance == lock)
> > 3109 return 1;
> > 3110
> > 3111 if (hlock->references) {
> > 3112 struct lock_class *class = lock->class_cache[0];
> > 3113
> > 3114 if (!class)
> > 3115 class = look_up_lock_class(lock, 0);
> > 3116
> > 3117 if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!class))
> > 3118 return 0;
> > 3119
> > 3120 if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!hlock->nest_lock))
> > 3121 return 0;
> > 3122
> > 3123 if (hlock->class_idx == class - lock_classes + 1)
> > 3124 return 1;
> > 3125 }
> > 3126
> > 3127 return 0;
> > 3128 }
> > 3129
>
> Ah, in that case my previous analysis was pointless and I shall need to
> scratch my head some more.
>

That was a good idea to check what's going on on 3117 line. Well, your analysis
was correct, it's just we have different match_held_lock() lines, and I guess we
may have different lines within match_held_lock()-callers in that case.

Just for note, I'm using the latest
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
$ git pull
Already up-to-date.


Sergey


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-04 18:07    [W:1.222 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site