Re: [PATCH v4] lockdep: check that no locks held at freeze time
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Feb 20 2013 - 19:20:23 EST
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:17:39 -0800
Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:17:16 -0800
> > Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> We shouldn't try_to_freeze if locks are held.
> >> ...
> >> @@ -43,6 +44,9 @@ extern void thaw_kernel_threads(void);
> >> + if (!(current->flags & PF_NOFREEZE))
> >> + debug_check_no_locks_held(current,
> >> +
> >> "lock held while trying to freeze");
> >> ...
> >> + debug_check_no_locks_held(tsk, "lock held at task exit time");
> > There doesn't seem much point in adding the `msg' to
> > debug_check_no_locks_held() - the dump_stack() in
> > print_held_locks_bug() will tell us the same thing. Maybe just change
> dump_stack() can be confusing when there is inlining. On occasion I've
> looked at the wrong mutex_lock, for example, when there was another
> mutex_lock that was inlined. Of course, you can start objdump and
> verify the offsets. But that requires that you have the object file.
> You could have a try_to_freeze added to do_exit. I was thinking of
> adding another locks_held in the return from syscall path.
Backtraces aren't *that* bad. We'll easily be able to tell which of
the two callsites triggered the trace.
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/