You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Daniel J Blueman reported:
| =======================================================
| [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
| 2.6.26-rc5-201c #1
| -------------------------------------------------------
| nscd/3669 is trying to acquire lock:
| (&n->list_lock){.+..}, at: [<ffffffff802bab03>] deactivate_slab+0x173/0x1e0
|
| but task is already holding lock:
| (&obj_hash[i].lock){++..}, at: [<ffffffff803fa56f>]
| __debug_object_init+0x2f/0x350
|
| which lock already depends on the new lock.
There are two locks involved here; the first is a SLUB-local lock, and
the second is a debugobjects-local lock. They are basically taken in two
different orders:
1. SLUB { debugobjects { ... } }
2. debugobjects { SLUB { ... } }
This patch changes pattern #2 by trying to fill the memory pool (e.g.
the call into SLUB/kmalloc()) outside the debugobjects lock, so now the
two patterns look like this:
1. SLUB { debugobjects { ... } }
2. SLUB { } debugobjects { ... }
[ [email protected]: pool_lock needs to be taken irq safe in fill_pool ]
Reported-by: Daniel J Blueman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
0 commit comments