Re: lockdep false positive in double_lock_balance()?

[Roland Dreier]

> *phew* you actually made me think there ;-)

Sorry for that.

> The race you describe exists, except that's not how lockdep works. Both
> cpu's would have a different task (one would hope to presume) and the
> held lock stack is per task. So even if busiest_rq on cpu1 (lock case)
> is the same lock as this_rq on cpu0 (unlock case), they're in different
> stacks with different states.

Got it.  I confused myself between user processes (which might have
multiple threads on multiple CPUs) and kernel tasks.

> Something like this should fix it I think..

Thanks, I'll throw this in and let you know if we see this again.
But it's very rare so hard to know one way or another for quite
a while.

 - R.
--
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/