From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: lockdep: how to tell it multiple pte locks is OK?
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:31:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47087D45.2010904@goop.org> (raw)
I'm writing some code which is doing some batch processing on pte pages,
and so wants to hold multiple pte locks at once. This seems OK, but
lockdep is giving me the warning:
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.23-rc9-paravirt #1673
---------------------------------------------
init/1 is trying to acquire lock:
(__pte_lockptr(new)){--..}, at: [<c0102d85>] lock_pte+0x10/0x15
but task is already holding lock:
(__pte_lockptr(new)){--..}, at: [<c0102d85>] lock_pte+0x10/0x15
other info that might help us debug this:
4 locks held by init/1:
#0: (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c012999e>] copy_process+0xab4/0x12bf
#1: (&mm->mmap_sem/1){--..}, at: [<c01299ae>] copy_process+0xac4/0x12bf
#2: (&mm->page_table_lock){--..}, at: [<c010334a>] xen_dup_mmap+0x11/0x24
#3: (__pte_lockptr(new)){--..}, at: [<c0102d85>] lock_pte+0x10/0x15
stack backtrace:
[<c0109282>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
[<c0109d18>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[<c0109d30>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
[<c0147bd0>] __lock_acquire+0x195/0xc5f
[<c0148722>] lock_acquire+0x88/0xac
[<c035c2a3>] _spin_lock+0x35/0x42
[<c0102d85>] lock_pte+0x10/0x15
[<c010347d>] pin_page+0x67/0x17e
[<c0102d23>] pgd_walk+0x168/0x1ba
[<c0103283>] xen_pgd_pin+0x42/0xf8
[<c0103352>] xen_dup_mmap+0x19/0x24
[<c0129b63>] copy_process+0xc79/0x12bf
[<c012a419>] do_fork+0x99/0x1bf
[<c0106216>] sys_clone+0x33/0x39
[<c010814e>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
=======================
I presume this is because I'm holding multiple pte locks (class
"__pte_lockptr(new)"). Is there some way I can tell lockdep this is OK?
I'm presume I'm the first person to try holding multiple pte locks at
once, so there's no existing locking order for these locks. I'm always
traversing and locking the pagetable in virtual address order (and this
seems like a sane-enough rule for anyone else who wants to hold multiple
pte locks).
Thanks,
J
next reply other threads:[~2007-10-07 6:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-07 6:31 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2007-10-07 8:29 ` lockdep: how to tell it multiple pte locks is OK? Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-07 15:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-10-07 16:58 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-10-07 17:17 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-10-07 17:46 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-10-09 0:20 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47087D45.2010904@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox