On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:32:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:26:45PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > It seems to me that when the second time alloc_workqueue() is called
> > > from the same code path, it would have two locks with the same key, but
> > > not the same &w
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 04:26:45PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > It seems to me that when the second time alloc_workqueue() is called
> > from the same code path, it would have two locks with the same key, but
> > not the same &wq->name, which doesn't meet lockdep's assumption.
>
> Dang... I revert
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:35:24PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> [5.251993] [ cut here ]
> [5.252019] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 221 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:710
> __lock_acquire+0x1761/0x1f60()
> [5.252019] Modules linked in: e1000
> [5.252019] CPU: 0 PID: 221 Comm
On Tue, 2014-02-11 at 10:27 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:00:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Looks good to me. Can you please post the patch with SOB?
> >
> > ---
> > Subject: workqueue: Fix workqueue lockdep name
> >
> > Tommi noticed a 'funny' lock class name: "%
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:00:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Looks good to me. Can you please post the patch with SOB?
>
> ---
> Subject: workqueue: Fix workqueue lockdep name
>
> Tommi noticed a 'funny' lock class name: "%s#5" from a lock acquired in
> process_one_work(). It turns out th
> Looks good to me. Can you please post the patch with SOB?
---
Subject: workqueue: Fix workqueue lockdep name
Tommi noticed a 'funny' lock class name: "%s#5" from a lock acquired in
process_one_work(). It turns out that commit b196be89cdc14 forgot to
change the lockdep_init_map() when it change
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:28:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Lol.. its correct afaict:
>
> struct workqueue_struct *__alloc_workqueue_key(const char *fmt,
> unsigned int flags,
> int max_active,
>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:19:43PM +0200, Tommi Rantala wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Noticed a suspicious "%s#5" lock name in a lockdep splat while fuzzing
> with trinity.
>
> [249844.531638] #0: (%s#5){.+.+.+}, at: []
> process_one_work+0x240/0x690
Lol.. its correct afaict:
struct workqueue_struct *_
Hello,
Noticed a suspicious "%s#5" lock name in a lockdep splat while fuzzing
with trinity.
Tommi
[249844.491141] INFO: task kworker/u2:2:32113 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
[249844.493268] Not tainted v3.13-11268-g8a1f006 #3
[249844.494731] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeou
9 matches
Mail list logo