On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 16:03 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > Ok, I think this may be related to what Sitsofe reported in the "lockdep > recursive locking detected" thread on LKML (see > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131805699106560). > > Peter and Christoph hypothesized that 056c62418cc6 ("slab: fix lockdep > warnings") may not have had full coverage when setting lockdep classes for > kmem_list3 locks that may be called inside of each other because of > off-slab metadata. > > I think it's safe to say there is no deadlock possibility here or we would > have seen it since 2006 and this is just a matter of lockdep annotation > that needs to be done. So don't worry too much about the warning even > though I know it's annoying and it suppresses future lockdep output (even > more annoying!). > > I'm not sure if there's a patch to address that yet, I think one was in > the works. If not, I'll take a look at rewriting that lockdep annotation. Urgh, I so totally forgot about that.. :-/ So no, no patch yet. -- 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