On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 11:05:11AM +0800, Michael Wang wrote: >> On 09/05/2012 09:55 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: >> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2012, Michael Wang wrote: >> > >> >> Since the cachep and cachep->slabp_cache's l3 alien are in the same lock class, >> >> fake report generated. >> > >> > Ahh... That is a key insight into why this occurs. >> > >> >> This should not happen since we already have init_lock_keys() which will >> >> reassign the lock class for both l3 list and l3 alien. >> > >> > Right. I was wondering why we still get intermitted reports on this. >> > >> >> This patch will invoke init_lock_keys() after we done enable_cpucache() >> >> instead of before to avoid the fake DEADLOCK report. >> > >> > Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Thanks for your review. >> >> And add Paul to the cc list(my skills on mailing is really poor...). > > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I'd also like to tag this for the stable tree to avoid bogus lockdep reports. How far back in release history should we queue this? -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>