Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754987AbYH1Nml (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:42:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752735AbYH1Nm3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:42:29 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]:37408 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751613AbYH1Nm2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:42:28 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=gPOj9j5kJTbkL4/bKOP/9f8JzMIutKYeOJJLYmZ5hNzTJmkGTPhcq2G0BVbKo3HbQa rEcls1hE2Lam+1vpJGPS25gPNy39WGTVgUynjvOPxPziCn4MyWyd+rVCLKnDRrjVjVG/ PMLerN4QOOGRuNc/G4ajY1w8iqtk93Fceoqtw= Message-ID: <19f34abd0808280642j529eab2ct17722644d1550ad9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:42:26 +0200 From: "Vegard Nossum" To: "Daniel J Blueman" Subject: Re: SLUB/debugobjects locking (Re: 2.6.27-rc4-git1: Reported regressions from 2.6.26) Cc: "Thomas Gleixner" , "Christoph Lameter" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Adrian Bunk" , "Andrew Morton" , "Natalie Protasevich" , "Kernel Testers List" In-Reply-To: <6278d2220808261514p2661251aw914215652c547125@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <19f34abd0808251244v439e78b1hbb24f77c637559c3@mail.gmail.com> <6278d2220808261514p2661251aw914215652c547125@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1704 Lines: 47 On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:14 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Vegard Nossum wrote: >> I tried your suggestion of promoting the lock to irq-safe, and it >> fixed the warning for me (didn't get or look for deadlocks yet, but it >> seems likely that it is caused by the same thing?), the patch is >> attached for reference. >> >> I also don't know if this is the best fix, but I also don't have any >> other (better) suggestions. >> >> Others are welcome to pick it up from here... > > The solution looks like is needs to get the lock ordering correct > w.r.t. SLUB, as we get this, alas: > > ======================================================= > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > 2.6.27-rc4-229c-debug #1 Hm. Is this with my first patch + the one in the e-mail you replied to? It was intended to be a delta patch on top of my first one. That would be the one in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121946972307110&w=4 plus the one in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121969394110327&w=1 Thanks for testing and sorry for the confusion. (Maybe I just confused myself. Please let me know either way.) Vegard -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/