On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:37 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > swapvec_lock?  Oodles of 'em?  Nope.
> Well, it's a per cpu lock and the lru_cache_add() variants might be called
> from a gazillion of different call chains, but yes, it does not make a lot
> of sense. We'll have a look.

Adding explicit local_irq_lock_init() makes things heaps better, so
presumably we need better lockdep-foo in DEFINE_LOCAL_IRQ_LOCK().


Reply via email to