The comments do not explain correctly what is going on. Sorry Oleg but it
seems that the protection of the assignment to reap_work is different that
what we initially thought.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Index: current/mm/slab.c
===================================================================
--- current.orig/mm/slab.c 2007-02-01 15:07:09.000000000 -0800
+++ current/mm/slab.c 2007-02-01 15:09:21.000000000 -0800
@@ -1274,10 +1274,12 @@ static int __cpuinit cpuup_callback(stru
case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
/*
* Shutdown cache reaper. Note that the cache_chain_mutex is
- * held so that cache_reap() cannot modify reap_work
- * concurrently.
+ * held so that if cache_reap() is invoked it cannot do
+ * anything expensive but will only modify reap_work
+ * and reschedule the timer.
*/
cancel_rearming_delayed_work(&per_cpu(reap_work, cpu));
+ /* Now the cache_reaper is guaranteed to be not running. */
per_cpu(reap_work, cpu).work.func = NULL;
break;
case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
