From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932065AbXCUPZa (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:25:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932241AbXCUPZa (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:25:30 -0400 Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:44450 "EHLO mail.screens.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932065AbXCUPZ3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:25:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:29:35 +0300 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Jarek Poplawski Cc: Neil Brown , Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , Folkert van Heusden , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "J. Bruce Fields" , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [2.6.20] BUG: workqueue leaked lock Message-ID: <20070321152935.GA215@tv-sign.ru> References: <17918.11420.155569.991473@notabene.brown> <20070320093753.GA1751@ff.dom.local> <20070320160759.GA107@tv-sign.ru> <20070321080510.GA1939@ff.dom.local> <20070321144620.GC78@tv-sign.ru> <20070321151651.GA4547@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070321151651.GA4547@ff.dom.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/21, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > Sorry, I can't understand you. lockdep_depth is counted within a process, > > which starts before f(), yes. This process is cwq->thread, it was forked > > during create_workqueue(). It does not take any locks directly, only by > > calling work->func(). laundry_wq doesn't differ from keventd_wq or any other > > wq in this sense. nfsd does not "runs kthread by itself", it inserts the > > work and wakes up cwq->thread. > > I think we know how it all should start and go. If only analyzing > the code could be enough, this current check of lockdep_depth() > is unnecessary too, because laundromat_code code looks as good > as run_workqueue code. I send it for testing and I mean it - > something strange is going here, so some checks should be added > - I didn't say mine is the right and will certainly help. Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. I had (my fault) a false impression that you propose this patch as a "fix", while we seem to agree that the real source of this problem remains unknown. > So, if > you have another idea for looking after it, let us know. No, I don't. Oleg.