[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091124170032.GC6831@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:00:32 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 05:33:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 21:13 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > This seems like a lot of work to paper over a lockdep false positive in
> > > code that should be firmly in the maintenance end of its lifecycle? I'd
> > > rather the fix or papering over happen in lockdep.
> >
> > True that. Is __raw_spin_lock() out of question, Peter?-) Passing the
> > state is pretty invasive because of the kmem_cache_free() call in
> > slab_destroy(). We re-enter the slab allocator from the outer edges
> > which makes spin_lock_nested() very inconvenient.
>
> I'm perfectly fine with letting the thing be as it is, its apparently
> not something that triggers very often, and since slab will be killed
> off soon, who cares.
Which of the alternatives to slab should I be testing with, then?
[Ducks, runs away.]
Thanx, Paul
--
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