Re: lockdep reports about recursive locking in kmemleak

[Christoph Lameter]

On Wed, 9 May 2012, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> > I'm not sure what the right fix is (cc'ing Christoph for the slab.c
> > code). The lockdep warning is not in kmemleak, it just happens that
> > cache_flusharray() (holding an l3->list_lock) triggers a new allocation
> > via debug_object_activate() and kmemleak also tries to allocate its
> > metadata, causing a cache_alloc_refill() call which acquires a
> > different l3->list_lock, hence the lockdep warning.
>
> How do we know it's always a different nodelist ("l3")?

The second l3 is from a cache that makes no use of "off-slab" secondary
slabs otherwise we would have a bad case of recursion.

If you mark the locks of caches with off-slab features differently from
the simple ones then we should be fine.
--
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/