Re: [BUG] Lockdep recursive locking in kmem_cache_free

From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai
Date: Fri Jul 28 2006 - 17:08:43 EST

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 01:48:33PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 13:36 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let me know, if you need more info
> > >
> > > What type of NUMA system is this? How many nodes? Is memory exhausted on
> > > some so that allocations are redirected? Are cpusets or memory policies
> > > used to redirect allocations?
> >
> > Dual dual core opteron board, only one CPU brought up. This happens
> > during bootup, so no special settings involved.
> One cpu with two nodes?
> > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 0 0000000000000000-0000000080000000
> > [ 0.000000] Bootmem setup node 1 0000000080000000-00000000fbff0000
> Right two nodes. We may have a special case here of one cpu having to
> manage remote memory. Alien cache freeing is likely screwed up in that
> case because we cannot have the idea of one processor local to the node
> doing the alien cache draining . We have to take the remote lock (no cpu
> dedicate to that node).

Why should there be any problem taking the remote l3 lock? If the remote
node does not have cpu that does not mean we cannot take a lock from the
local node!!!

I think current git does not teach lockdep to ignore recursion for
array_cache->lock when the array_cache->lock are from different cases. As
Arjan pointed out, I can see that l3->list_lock is special cased, but I
cannot find where array_cache->lock is taken care of.

Again, if this is indeed a problem (recursion) machine should not boot even,
when compiled without lockdep, tglx, can you please verify this?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at