Maybe we should define raw __likely/__unlikely which behave the same way as the vanilla and use them in places like spinlocks to
avoid these weird problems.
> * Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The lock validator gives me this (latest -mm and 2.6.18-rc6):
> >
> > =====================================
> > [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> > -------------------------------------
> > swapper/0 is trying to release lock (resource_lock) at:
> > [<0000000000042842>] request_resource+0x52/0x88 but there
> are no more
> > locks to release!
> >
> > The reason is that the BUILD_LOCK_OPS macros in
> kernel/lockdep.c don't
> > contain any of the *_acquire calls, while all of the
> _unlock functions
> > contain a *_release call. Hence I get immediately unbalanced locks.
>
> hmmm ... that sounds like a bug. Weird - i recently ran
> PREEMPT+SMP+LOCKDEP kernels and didnt notice this.
>
> > Found this will debugging some random memory corruptions
> that happen
> > when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and CONFIG_PROFILE_LIKELY are both on.
> > Switching both off or having only one of them on seems to work.
>
> previously i had some weirdnesses with PROFILE_LIKELY too,
> they were caused by it generating cross-calls from within
> lockdep. Do the corruptions go away if you remove all
> likely() and unlikely() markings from kernel/lockdep.c?
>
> Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
