Re: How to avoid spurious lockdep warnings?

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:02:11 -0700
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
> > In a Xen system, when a new pagetable is about to be put in use it is 
> > "pinned", meaning that each page in the pagetable is registered with
> > the hypervisor.  This is done in arch/x86/xen/mmu.c:pin_page().
> >
> > In order to make this efficient, the hypercalls for pinning are
> > batched, so that multiple pages are submitted at once in a single
> > multicall. While a page is batched pending the hypercall, its
> > corresponding pte_lock is held.
> >
> > This means that the code can end up holding multiple pte locks at
> > once, though it is guaranteed to never try to hold the same lock at
> > once. However, because these locks are in the same lock class, I get
> > a spurious warning from lockdep.  Is there some way I can get rid of
> > this warning?
> >     
>
>
> what's the ordering guarantee between these locks ?
>   

Pagetable virtual address order.  move_ptes can also lock two ptes 
within one pagetable, without regard to order, but they're protected by 
mmap_sem, which is also held during pinning.

   J
--
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/