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(). -Mike