From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next oops in __lock_acquire for process_one_work
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 19:02:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1336496568.8226.34.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120508165819.GB10687@google.com>
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 09:58 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:03:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I think there's a problem if indeed we do silly things like small copies
> > like Hugh saw (why would gcc ever generate small copies for objects that
> > are naturally aligned and naturally sized?).
> >
> > Something like the below should fix that problem, but it doesn't explain
> > the observed issue..
>
> Hmmm.... Hugh, can you please verify whether this patch makes the
> problem go away somehow?
>
> > @@ -1810,7 +1810,7 @@ __acquires(&gcwq->lock)
> > * lock freed" warnings as well as problems when looking into
> > * work->lockdep_map, make a copy and use that here.
> > */
> > - struct lockdep_map lockdep_map = work->lockdep_map;
> > + struct lockdep_map lockdep_map = lockdep_copy_map(&work->lockdep_map);
>
> If this is the correct fix for whatever reason, maybe we want the copy
> interface to be a bit more conventional? lockdep_copy_map(to, from)?
Sure why not.. still not quite understanding the whole issue though.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-08 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-07 17:19 Hugh Dickins
2012-05-07 17:57 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-08 13:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-08 16:58 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-08 17:02 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2012-05-08 18:11 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-05-08 22:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-08 22:58 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-05-09 9:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-05-09 20:09 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-05-10 17:52 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-05-14 21:27 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-15 11:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-15 15:10 ` [PATCH] lockdep: fix oops in processing workqueue Tejun Heo
2012-05-15 15:29 ` Dave Jones
2012-05-15 15:31 ` Tejun Heo
2012-05-15 20:36 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-05-08 18:05 ` linux-next oops in __lock_acquire for process_one_work Hugh Dickins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1336496568.8226.34.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome