Re: 2.6.24-rc2-mm1: kcryptd vs lockdep

[Milan Broz <mbroz@redhat.com>]

Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz <mbroz@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Torsten Kaiser wrote:
>>> Anything I could try, apart from more boots with slub_debug=F?
> 
> One time it triggered with slub_debug=F, but no additional output.
> With slub_debug=FP I have not seen it again, so I can't say if that
> would yield more info.
> 
>> Please could you try which patch from the dm-crypt series cause this ?
>> (agk-dm-dm-crypt* names.)
>>
>> I suspect agk-dm-dm-crypt-move-bio-submission-to-thread.patch because
>> there is one work struct used subsequently in two threads...
>> (io thread already started while crypt thread is processing lockdep_map
>> after calling f(work)...)
> 
> After reverting only
> agk-dm-dm-crypt-move-bio-submission-to-thread.patch I also have not
> seen the 'held lock freed' message again.

Ok, then I have question: Is the following pseudocode correct
(and problem is in lock validation which checks something
already initialized for another queue) or reusing work_struct
is not permitted from inside called work function ?

(Note comment in code "It is permissible to free the struct
work_struct from inside the function that is called from it".)

struct work_struct work;
struct workqueue_struct *a, *b;

do_b(*work) 
{
	/* do something else */
}

do_a(*work)
{
	/* do something */
	INIT_WORK(&work, do_b);
	queue_work(b, &work);
}


INIT_WORK(&work, do_a);
queue_work(a, &work);

Milan
--
mbroz@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/