[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110504143616.GA19986@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:36:16 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
werner <w.landgraf@...ru>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: [PATCH] slub: Fix the lockless code on 32-bit platforms with no
64-bit cmpxchg
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > Patch below. Ingo, can you test that please ?
>
> Sure - test underway.
Ok, the patch below is looking really good - the test would have crashed on the
bad kernel. I think we can consider the regression fixed:
Acked-and-tested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
I'll keep it running some more to make really sure it's fixed, plus it would be
nice if Walter tested your fix as well.
Thanks,
Ingo
----------------->
>From c22bd309573330e33a77c329405d9473fc14f1cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 15:38:19 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] slub: Fix the lockless code on 32-bit platforms with no 64-bit cmpxchg
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: werner <w.landgraf@...ru>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LFD.2.02.1105041539050.3005@ionos
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
---
include/linux/percpu.h | 2 +-
mm/slub.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/percpu.h b/include/linux/percpu.h
index 3a5c444..8b97308 100644
--- a/include/linux/percpu.h
+++ b/include/linux/percpu.h
@@ -948,7 +948,7 @@ do { \
irqsafe_generic_cpu_cmpxchg_double(pcp1, pcp2, oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2)
# endif
# define irqsafe_cpu_cmpxchg_double(pcp1, pcp2, oval1, oval2, nval1, nval2) \
- __pcpu_double_call_return_int(irqsafe_cpu_cmpxchg_double_, (pcp1), (pcp2), (oval1), (oval2), (nval1), (nval2))
+ __pcpu_double_call_return_bool(irqsafe_cpu_cmpxchg_double_, (pcp1), (pcp2), (oval1), (oval2), (nval1), (nval2))
#endif
#endif /* __LINUX_PERCPU_H */
diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index 94d2a33..9d2e5e4 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -1940,7 +1940,7 @@ redo:
* Since this is without lock semantics the protection is only against
* code executing on this cpu *not* from access by other cpus.
*/
- if (unlikely(!this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(
+ if (unlikely(!irqsafe_cpu_cmpxchg_double(
s->cpu_slab->freelist, s->cpu_slab->tid,
object, tid,
get_freepointer(s, object), next_tid(tid)))) {
@@ -2145,7 +2145,7 @@ redo:
set_freepointer(s, object, c->freelist);
#ifdef CONFIG_CMPXCHG_LOCAL
- if (unlikely(!this_cpu_cmpxchg_double(
+ if (unlikely(!irqsafe_cpu_cmpxchg_double(
s->cpu_slab->freelist, s->cpu_slab->tid,
c->freelist, tid,
object, next_tid(tid)))) {
--
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