From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e6.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2HFxLGK028619 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:59:21 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m2HFvKUE205530 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:57:20 -0400 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m2HFvJjl008933 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:57:20 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [0/18] GB pages hugetlb support From: Adam Litke In-Reply-To: <20080317153314.GD5578@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20080317258.659191058@firstfloor.org> <1205766307.10849.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080317153314.GD5578@one.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:59:06 -0500 Message-Id: <1205769546.10849.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pj@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au List-ID: On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 16:33 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I bet copy_hugetlb_page_range() is causing your complaints. It takes > > the dest_mm->page_table_lock followed by src_mm->page_table_lock inside > > a loop and hasn't yet been converted to call spin_lock_nested(). A > > harmless false positive. > > Yes. Looking at the warning I'm not sure why lockdep doesn't filter > it out automatically. I cannot think of a legitimate case where > a "possible recursive lock" with different lock addresses would be > a genuine bug. > > So instead of a false positive, it's more like a "always false" :) > > > > > > - hugemmap04 from LTP fails. Cause unknown currently > > > > I am not sure how well LTP is tracking mainline development in this > > area. How do these patches do with the libhugetlbfs test suite? We are > > I wasn't aware of that one. Libhugetlbfs comes with a rigorous functional test suite. It has test cases for specific bugs that have since been fixed. I ran it on your patches and got an oops around hugetlb_overcommit_handler() when running the 'counters' test. -- Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com) IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org