On 05/15, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 04:58:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Could you explain in detail what exactly did you do and what do you see in
> > dmesg?
> >
> > Just in case, lockdep complains only once, print_circular_bug() does
On 05/13, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 05:10:25PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I am starting to think I am ;)
> >
> > If you have task1 != task2 this code
> >
> > task_lock(task1);
> > task_lock(task2);
> >
> >
On 05/09, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 05:56:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Impossible ;) I bet lockdep should report the deadlock as soon as
> > find_victims()
> > calls find_lock_task_mm() when you already have a locked victim.
>
> I
On 05/07, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 05:31:54PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Did you test this patch with lockdep enabled?
> >
> > If I read the patch correctly, lockdep should complain. vtsk_is_duplicate()
> > ensures that we do not ta
I am not going to comment the intent, but to be honest I am skeptical too.
On 05/06, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
>
> +static unsigned long find_victims(struct victim_info *varr, int *vindex,
> + int vmaxlen, int min_adj, int max_adj)
> +{
> + unsigned long pages_found =
