* Srihari Vijayaraghavan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Compiled slub with SMP & CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING. No luck. It still hangs
> solid after the second spinlock lockup call trace.
hm. This suggests that the spinlock got corrupted - otherwise lockdep
would have complained about the lockup before the spinlock-debug code
had its chance.
> Surprisingly, with CONFIG_SMP=n, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING produces this
> with slub (then hangs solid):
yes - PROVE_LOCKING reactivates spinlocks even on UP. At least this
suggests that you'd have gotten the hang even with maxcpus=1 - i.e. the
spinlock corruption is not caused by some genuine SMP race.
furthermore, PROVE_LOCKING also turns on DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC, so we now
know that it's most likely not use-after-free type of corruption.
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]
