On 07/11/2014 11:59 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> I agree with you that "The call trace is very clear on it that its not", but >>> > > when you have 500 call traces you really want something better than going >>> > > through it one call trace at a time. >> > >> > Points well made, and I strongly agree with Vlastimil and Sasha. >> > There is a world of difference between a lock wanted and a lock held, >> > and for the display of locks "held" to conceal that difference is unhelpful. >> > It just needs one greppable word to distinguish the cases. > So for the actual locking scenario it doesn't make a difference one way > or another. These threads all can/could/will acquire the lock > (eventually), so all their locking chains should be considered. I think that the difference here is that we're not actually debugging a locking issue, we're merely using lockdep to help with figuring out a non-locking related bug and finding it difficult because lockdep's list of "held locks" is really a lie :) Thanks, Sasha -- 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>