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. - 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/
