Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Pekka Enberg]

Peter Zijlstra kirjoitti:
> On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 12:38 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >  2) propagate the nesting information and user spin_lock_nested(), given
> > > that slab is already a rat's nest, this won't make it any less obvious.
> > spin_lock_nested() doesn't really help us here because there's a
> > _real_ possibility of a recursive spin lock here, right? 
>
> Well, I was working under the assumption that your analysis of it being
> a false positive was right ;-)
>
> I briefly tried to verify that, but got lost and gave up, at which point
> I started looking for ways to annotate.

Uh, ok, so apparently I was right after all. There's a comment in 
free_block() above the slab_destroy() call that refers to the comment 
above alloc_slabmgmt() function definition which explains it all.

Long story short: ->slab_cachep never points to the same kmalloc cache 
we're allocating or freeing from. Where do we need to put the 
spin_lock_nested() annotation? Would it be enough to just use it in 
cache_free_alien() for alien->lock or do we need it in 
cache_flusharray() as well?

			Pekka
--
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/