Re: [PATCH] [0/18] GB pages hugetlb support

[Adam Litke]

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

--
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/