Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:

> Why should there be any problem taking the remote l3 lock?  If the remote
> node does not have cpu that does not mean we cannot take a lock from the
> local node!!! 
> 
> I think current git does not teach lockdep to ignore recursion for
> array_cache->lock when the array_cache->lock are from different cases.  As
> Arjan pointed out, I can see that l3->list_lock is special cased, but I
> cannot find where array_cache->lock is taken care of.

Ok.
 
> Again, if this is indeed a problem (recursion) machine should not boot even,
> when compiled without lockdep, tglx, can you please verify this?

We seem to be fine on that level.

I would still like to see someone thinking through this a bit more.

Allocations via page_alloc_node() may be redirected by cpusets and 
because nodes are low on memory. This means that we get memory on a 
different node than we requested. How does that impact the alien lock 
situation? In particular what happens if the off slab allocation for 
the management object was on a different node from the slab data?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/