On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 10:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 09:30:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > - double_lock(&my_grp->lock, &grp->lock);
> > + BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
> > + double_lock_irq(&my_grp->lock, &grp->lock);
>
> So either make this:
>
> local_irq_disable();
> double_lock();
>
> or
>
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < NR_NUMA_HINT_FAULT_STATS * nr_node_ids; i++) {
> > my_grp->faults[i] -= p->numa_faults_memory[i];
> > @@ -1692,6 +1693,7 @@ static void task_numa_group(struct task_
> >
> > spin_unlock(&my_grp->lock);
> > spin_unlock(&grp->lock);
> > + local_irq_enable();
>
> use:
> spin_unlock()
> spin_unlock_irq()
*thwap* Well duh.
> or so, but this imbalance is making my itch :-)
Yeah, much better.
Before I actually sign that off, mind cluing me in as to why I should
not be sitting here thinking lockdep smoked its breakfast?
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
