[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:02:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
cc: Julie Sullivan <kernelmail.jms@...il.com>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible recursive locking detected: get_partial_node()
on 3.2-rc1
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Looks this could be a real dead lock. we hold a lock to free a object,
> but the free need allocate a new object. if the new object and the freed
> object are from the same slab, there is a deadlock.
unfreeze partials is never called when going through get_partial_node()
so there is no deadlock AFAICT.
> discard_slab() doesn't need hold the lock if the slab is already removed
> from partial list. how about below patch, only compile tested.
In general I think it is good to move the call to discard_slab() out from
under the list_lock in unfreeze_partials(). Could you fold
discard_page_list into unfreeze_partials()? __flush_cpu_slab still calls
discard_page_list with disabled interrupts even after your patch.
--
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