VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Christian König
On 21.04.2012 19:30, Jerome Glisse wrote: > 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: >> On 21.04.2012 17:57, Dave Airlie wrote: >>> 2012/4/21 Jerome Glisse: 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: > On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: >>> Interesting, I'm pretty sure that

VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Christian König
On 21.04.2012 17:57, Dave Airlie wrote: > 2012/4/21 Jerome Glisse: >> 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: >>> On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: > Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of > the > cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. >

VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Dave Airlie
2012/4/21 Jerome Glisse : > 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig : >> On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>> >>> 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of the cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. Maybe it is just some kind of sid

VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Christian König
On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: > 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: >> Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of the >> cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. >> >> Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it anyway. >> >> Christian. >> > It's the using, in

VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Christian König
Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of the cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it anyway. Christian. On 21.04.2012 13:39, Dave Airlie wrote: > running 3.4.0-rc3 + Christian's reset patch series. > > The locks

VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Jerome Glisse
2012/4/21 Christian K?nig : > On 21.04.2012 17:57, Dave Airlie wrote: >> >> 2012/4/21 Jerome Glisse: >>> >>> 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: >> >> Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the lo

VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Dave Airlie
running 3.4.0-rc3 + Christian's reset patch series. The locks are definitely taken in different orders between vm_bo_add and cs ioctl. Dave. == [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 3.4.0-rc3+ #33 Not tainted -

Re: VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Christian König
On 21.04.2012 19:30, Jerome Glisse wrote: 2012/4/21 Christian König: On 21.04.2012 17:57, Dave Airlie wrote: 2012/4/21 Jerome Glisse: 2012/4/21 Christian König: On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: 2012/4/21 Christian König: Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locki

VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Jerome Glisse
2012/4/21 Christian K?nig : > On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> >> 2012/4/21 Christian K?nig: >>> >>> Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of >>> the >>> cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. >>> >>> Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it >>

Re: VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Jerome Glisse
2012/4/21 Christian König : > On 21.04.2012 17:57, Dave Airlie wrote: >> >> 2012/4/21 Jerome Glisse: >>> >>> 2012/4/21 Christian König: On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > 2012/4/21 Christian König: >> >> Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the lo

VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Jerome Glisse
2012/4/21 Christian K?nig : > Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of the > cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. > > Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it anyway. > > Christian. > It's the using, init path take lock in different order than cs path

Re: VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Christian König
On 21.04.2012 17:57, Dave Airlie wrote: 2012/4/21 Jerome Glisse: 2012/4/21 Christian König: On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: 2012/4/21 Christian König: Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of the cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. Maybe it is just some kind of s

Re: VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Dave Airlie
2012/4/21 Jerome Glisse : > 2012/4/21 Christian König : >> On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>> >>> 2012/4/21 Christian König: Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of the cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. Maybe it is just some kind of sid

Re: VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Jerome Glisse
2012/4/21 Christian König : > On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: >> >> 2012/4/21 Christian König: >>> >>> Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of >>> the >>> cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. >>> >>> Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it >>

Re: VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Christian König
On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: 2012/4/21 Christian König: Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of the cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it anyway. Christian. It's the using, init path take lock

Re: VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Jerome Glisse
2012/4/21 Christian König : > Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of the > cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. > > Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it anyway. > > Christian. > It's the using, init path take lock in different order than cs path

Re: VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Christian König
Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of the cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it anyway. Christian. On 21.04.2012 13:39, Dave Airlie wrote: running 3.4.0-rc3 + Christian's reset patch series. The locks are

VM lockdep warning

2012-04-21 Thread Dave Airlie
running 3.4.0-rc3 + Christian's reset patch series. The locks are definitely taken in different orders between vm_bo_add and cs ioctl. Dave. == [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 3.4.0-rc3+ #33 Not tainted -