Re: ksm/memory hotplug: lockdep warning for ksm_thread_mutex vs.(memory_chain).rwsem

[Gerald Schaefer]

On 03.02.2012 00:00, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> 2012/2/2 Gerald Schaefer<gerald.schaefer@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Setting a memory block offline triggers the following lockdep warning. This
>> looks exactly like the issue reported by Kosaki Motohiro in
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/25/110. Seems like the resulting commit a0b0f58cdd
>> did not fix the lockdep warning. I'm able to reproduce it with current 3.3.0-rc2
>> as well as 2.6.37-rc4-00147-ga0b0f58.
>>
>> I'm not familiar with lockdep annotations, but I tried using down_read_nested()
>> for (memory_chain).rwsem, similar to the mutex_lock_nested() which was
>> introduced for ksm_thread_mutex, but that didn't help.
> 
> Heh, interesting. Simple question, do you have any user visible buggy
> behavior? or just false positive warn issue?
> 
> *_nested() is just hacky trick. so, any change may break their lie.
> Anyway I'd like to dig this one. thanks for reporting.

There is no real deadlock and no user visible buggy behaviour, the memory is
being offlined as requested. I think your conclusion from last time is still
valid, that both locks are inside mem_hotplug_mutex and there can't be a
deadlock. Question is how to convince lockdep of this.

--
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/