[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: lockdep reports about recursive locking in kmemleak
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> > I'm not sure what the right fix is (cc'ing Christoph for the slab.c
> > code). The lockdep warning is not in kmemleak, it just happens that
> > cache_flusharray() (holding an l3->list_lock) triggers a new allocation
> > via debug_object_activate() and kmemleak also tries to allocate its
> > metadata, causing a cache_alloc_refill() call which acquires a
> > different l3->list_lock, hence the lockdep warning.
> How do we know it's always a different nodelist ("l3")?

The second l3 is from a cache that makes no use of "off-slab" secondary
slabs otherwise we would have a bad case of recursion.

If you mark the locks of caches with off-slab features differently from
the simple ones then we should be fine.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-09 16:41    [W:0.044 / U:4.472 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site