On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 15:46 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > The first lock was acquired here in an RCU callback. The later lock that > > lockdep complained about appears to have been acquired from a recursive > > call to __cache_free(), with no help from RCU. This looks to me like > > one of the issues that arise from the slab allocator using itself to > > allocate slab metadata. > > Right. However, this is a false positive since the slab cache with > the metadata is different from the slab caches with the slab data. The slab > cache with the metadata does not use itself any metadata slab caches. Sure, but we're supposed to have annotated that.. see init_node_lock_keys() -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href