On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:35 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
Lockdep reports this issue when GFP_FS is infact set, and we enter
this path and acquire the lock. So lockdep seems to be doing the right
thing however by design i
On Wed, Feb 07 2018, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [...]
>>
>>> Lockdep reports this issue when GFP_FS is infact set, and we enter
>>> this path and acquire the lock. So lockdep seems to be doing the right
>>> thing however by design
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
>
>> Lockdep reports this issue when GFP_FS is infact set, and we enter
>> this path and acquire the lock. So lockdep seems to be doing the right
>> thing however by design it is reporting a false-positive.
>
> So I'm not seein
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 08:09:36AM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:49:03PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >
> >> [ 2115.359650] -(1)[106:kswapd0]=
> >> [ 2115.359665]
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:49:03PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>> [ 2115.359650] -(1)[106:kswapd0]=
>> [ 2115.359665] -(1)[106:kswapd0][ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
>> [ 2115.359684] -(1)[106
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:49:03PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> [ 2115.359650] -(1)[106:kswapd0]=
> [ 2115.359665] -(1)[106:kswapd0][ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> [ 2115.359684] -(1)[106:kswapd0]4.9.60+ #2 Tainted: GW O
> [ 2115.359699] -(1)[106:kswa
Hi Minchan,
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 02:32:13PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
[...]
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> [...]
>> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:49:03PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> >> During invocation of as
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 02:32:13PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Minchan,
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> [...]
> > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:49:03PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> During invocation of ashmem shrinker under memory pressure, ashmem
> >> calls into
Hi Minchan,
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
[...]
> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:49:03PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> During invocation of ashmem shrinker under memory pressure, ashmem
>> calls into VFS code via vfs_fallocate. We however make sure we
>> don't enter it if the a
Hi Joel,
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:49:03PM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> During invocation of ashmem shrinker under memory pressure, ashmem
> calls into VFS code via vfs_fallocate. We however make sure we
> don't enter it if the allocation was GFP_FS to prevent looping
> into filesystem code. Ho
During invocation of ashmem shrinker under memory pressure, ashmem
calls into VFS code via vfs_fallocate. We however make sure we
don't enter it if the allocation was GFP_FS to prevent looping
into filesystem code. However lockdep doesn't know this and prints
a lockdep splat as below.
This patch f
11 matches
Mail list logo
