[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <804dabb00803160124p1240abe1v842821e988fdeca7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:24:02 +0800
From: "Peter Teoh" <htmldeveloper@...il.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: htmldeveloper@...il.com
Subject: spin_lock after get_cpu_var()
I find it quite puzzling (no where else in kernel source is this
found) that you would want to apply spin_lock() after get_cpu_var().
The fddef is already percpu, so there is no need to lock it, right?
I submitted this patch before, but got no response, just trying my
luck this time :-).
void free_fdtable_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
{
struct fdtable *fdt = container_of(rcu, struct fdtable, rcu);
struct fdtable_defer *fddef;
BUG_ON(!fdt);
if (fdt->max_fds <= NR_OPEN_DEFAULT) {
/*
* This fdtable is embedded in the files structure and that
* structure itself is getting destroyed.
*/
kmem_cache_free(files_cachep,
container_of(fdt, struct files_struct, fdtab));
return;
}
if (fdt->max_fds <= (PAGE_SIZE / sizeof(struct file *))) {
kfree(fdt->fd);
kfree(fdt->open_fds);
kfree(fdt);
} else {
fddef = &get_cpu_var(fdtable_defer_list);=============> here
spin_lock(&fddef->lock);==========================>here
fdt->next = fddef->next;
fddef->next = fdt;
/* vmallocs are handled from the workqueue context */
schedule_work(&fddef->wq);
spin_unlock(&fddef->lock);
put_cpu_var(fdtable_defer_list);
}
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists