[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0120f82e-9251-9597-442f-8c582134a0d1@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 17:41:57 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 35/35] mm, slub: convert kmem_cpu_slab protection to
local_lock
On 8/17/21 5:39 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-08-05 17:20:00 [+0200], Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> @@ -2849,7 +2891,11 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
>>
>> load_freelist:
>>
>> - lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
>> + lockdep_assert_held(this_cpu_ptr(&s->cpu_slab->lock.lock));
>> +#else
>> + lockdep_assert_held(this_cpu_ptr(&s->cpu_slab->lock));
>> +#endif
>
> Could you please make this hunk only
>
> lockdep_assert_held(this_cpu_ptr(&s->cpu_slab->lock));
>
> i.e. the non-RT version?
Does it mean that version works fine on RT now?
>> /*
>> * freelist is pointing to the list of objects to be used.
>
>
> Sebastian
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists